Re: Policy to deal with old web content - Archiving pages?

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 22/12/2020 Jörg Schmidt wrote:

my personal opinion is very simple:
for me it would be enough to archive a static copy of the current state of the 
web pages, a history is not needed (in my opinion).


This is what we get by using SVN/GIT (for static content, like the main 
OpenOffice.org site). And I believe this is enough to our preservation 
purposes.


For mwiki we have templates and that is probably fine; but maybe we can 
find a way (with appropriate plugins) to inject "[OUTDATED]" into the 
HTML "title" tag of relevant pages, so that people who use search 
engines will not be misled into outdated pages.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: MWiki Developer Guide Blank Pages

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 17/12/2020 Carl Marcum wrote:

I think I've fixed the blank pages problem in the Developer Guide.


...and I think I've read all the MWiki-related mails sent to this list 
by now, so I'll answer!


Thank you guys for fixing the long-standing bug.

I documented, back at the time, the MWiki setup in the infrastructure 
repository (access restricted):

https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/trunk/docs
This may be useful to know for people who have server access - look into 
"services".


This is just a beginning though (hopefully!), as the "Andrea's mail" 
from 2019 that was found by Matthias was indeed a plan that still holds. 
Most importantly, we'll need to update the Mediawiki engine to a more 
recent version and update all third-party plugins on one side, and our 
custom components (skin, custom extensions) on the other one. And this 
time I'd like the entire process to be automatically tested and to have 
a less painful process for the local environment setup - as we'll want 
to test everything locally first.


It's going to be a lot of work, but feasible - the aim is also to make 
infrastructure modernizations that will allow us to update much more 
easily in future.


I'll catch up with server changes and then I'll post an updated plan in 
early January, which means next week.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Call for Proposals: Apache OpenOffice Devroom at FOSDEM 2021 (online)

[Dave Fisher]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 28, 2020, at 3:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> 
> Last call: don't be shy! Let's take FOSDEM as an occasion for an overall 
> "state of the project" where we inform each other on the current status and 
> ways forward.
> 
> All talks will be pre-recorded as Peter wrote, so no problem with timezones; 
> but after each talk we will have a live "questions and answers" session for 
> community talk.
> 
> Suggestions of what could be added for a more complete schedule (I won't add 
> names, but if you recognize yourself in the description please go ahead and 
> file a proposal immediately, as the schedule will need to be defined on 31 
> Dec; see https://s.apache.org/openoffice-fosdem-2021-cfp for details).
> 
> - Releases: How we do them, possible improvements, what's coming in 4.2.0
> 
> - Recruitment: ideas on how to improve it
> 
> - History of a first contribution (issues with documentation, with first 
> build, filing patches)
> 
> - Build system migration
> 
> - MWiki current status
> 
> - Reviewing patches on Github: our policies for testing, merging...
> 
> - Website migrations away from CMS (I see a proposal by Dave, but I read it 
> as an overview of our ancillary sites, not the two that were moved away from 
> the CMS; the migration itself would be an interesting topic for another 
> presentation).

Those sites were included. I can add those as a separate presentation.

Regards,
Dave 

> 
> - whatever you feel presenting; and no problem if it is more questions than 
> answers.
> 
> Important: please make sure you file your presentation/event in the "Apache 
> OpenOffice" track, as otherwise it will be easy for us to miss it when 
> preparing the final schedule.
> 
> Answering to Matthias below:
>> Wouldn't it be useful to have a link to the CfP also here:
>> https://fosdem.org/2021/schedule/tracks/
> 
> Yes, I sent it to FOSDEM just a few minutes after sending it here, then I 
> sent it the week after that... but apparently it was stuck in some anti-spam 
> filter until I let them notice again and then they published the link. They 
> fixed it about two weeks ago.
> 
> 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: Call for Proposals: Apache OpenOffice Devroom at FOSDEM 2021 (online)

[Andrea Pescetti]

Last call: don't be shy! Let's take FOSDEM as an occasion for an overall 
"state of the project" where we inform each other on the current status 
and ways forward.


All talks will be pre-recorded as Peter wrote, so no problem with 
timezones; but after each talk we will have a live "questions and 
answers" session for community talk.


Suggestions of what could be added for a more complete schedule (I won't 
add names, but if you recognize yourself in the description please go 
ahead and file a proposal immediately, as the schedule will need to be 
defined on 31 Dec; see https://s.apache.org/openoffice-fosdem-2021-cfp 
for details).


- Releases: How we do them, possible improvements, what's coming in 4.2.0

- Recruitment: ideas on how to improve it

- History of a first contribution (issues with documentation, with first 
build, filing patches)


- Build system migration

- MWiki current status

- Reviewing patches on Github: our policies for testing, merging...

- Website migrations away from CMS (I see a proposal by Dave, but I read 
it as an overview of our ancillary sites, not the two that were moved 
away from the CMS; the migration itself would be an interesting topic 
for another presentation).


- whatever you feel presenting; and no problem if it is more questions 
than answers.


Important: please make sure you file your presentation/event in the 
"Apache OpenOffice" track, as otherwise it will be easy for us to miss 
it when preparing the final schedule.


Answering to Matthias below:

Wouldn't it be useful to have a link to the CfP also here:
https://fosdem.org/2021/schedule/tracks/


Yes, I sent it to FOSDEM just a few minutes after sending it here, then 
I sent it the week after that... but apparently it was stuck in some 
anti-spam filter until I let them notice again and then they published 
the link. They fixed it about two weeks ago.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

[Marcus]

Am 28.12.20 um 20:32 schrieb Marcus:

Am 28.12.20 um 19:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:


On 28.12.20 15:40, Marcus wrote:

Am 28.12.20 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Kovacs:


On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post 
a blog

article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
moot with the actual release?


Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things 
more often.


First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the 
first time that we tell them what we did and why.


The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently 
it is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more 
frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome.


On third:  In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore 
people will show up to look at the Release Candidate.


but then we shouldn't forget to mention the download location of the 
RCs. Only then more people can help to test.


Marcus
We would then only learn of it if people run into issues. I rather 
have them write a short mail to dev list, as I have suggested it in 
the proposal.


just to see if I understood it correctly:

- From the blog post the Mac users learns about the problem and want to 
try the RC build

- They write a mail to dev@
- We write back a link where to download
- They then writes back if any issues arise or just to state that all is 
fine


Right?


OK, for the moment I've added the following:

"We would be happy to give you more details when you want to help us 
with testing. Just write a mail to the developers mailing list 
dev@openoffice.apache.org."


Please tell me if something has to be adjusted.

Marcus



My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the 
blog post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the 
people.


So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a 
reminder, we usually do not say anything, and people are used that 
the dev team works more behind the scene.




Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release 
announcement...?



On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

Hi -

I made extensive edits for consistency and language.

Patricia, please take a look if you wish.

Regards,
Dave

On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt  
wrote:





-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was:
[lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be
edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year.
We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for
4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.

Thanks for your efforts.

+1 once the text is properly edited.

see:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

[Marcus]

Am 28.12.20 um 19:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:


On 28.12.20 15:40, Marcus wrote:

Am 28.12.20 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Kovacs:


On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a 
blog

article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
moot with the actual release?


Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more 
often.


First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the 
first time that we tell them what we did and why.


The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently 
it is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more 
frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome.


On third:  In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore 
people will show up to look at the Release Candidate.


but then we shouldn't forget to mention the download location of the 
RCs. Only then more people can help to test.


Marcus
We would then only learn of it if people run into issues. I rather have 
them write a short mail to dev list, as I have suggested it in the 
proposal.


just to see if I understood it correctly:

- From the blog post the Mac users learns about the problem and want to 
try the RC build

- They write a mail to dev@
- We write back a link where to download
- They then writes back if any issues arise or just to state that all is 
fine


Right?

Marcus



My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the 
blog post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the 
people.


So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder, 
we usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team 
works more behind the scene.




Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release 
announcement...?



On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

Hi -

I made extensive edits for consistency and language.

Patricia, please take a look if you wish.

Regards,
Dave

On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt  
wrote:





-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was:
[lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be
edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year.
We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for
4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.

Thanks for your efforts.

+1 once the text is properly edited.

see:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

[Peter Kovacs]

On 28.12.20 15:40, Marcus wrote:

Am 28.12.20 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Kovacs:


On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a 
blog

article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
moot with the actual release?


Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more 
often.


First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the 
first time that we tell them what we did and why.


The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently 
it is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more 
frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome.


On third:  In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore 
people will show up to look at the Release Candidate.


but then we shouldn't forget to mention the download location of the 
RCs. Only then more people can help to test.


Marcus
We would then only learn of it if people run into issues. I rather have 
them write a short mail to dev list, as I have suggested it in the proposal.




My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the 
blog post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the 
people.


So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder, 
we usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team 
works more behind the scene.




Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release 
announcement...?



On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

Hi -

I made extensive edits for consistency and language.

Patricia, please take a look if you wish.

Regards,
Dave

On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt  
wrote:





-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was:
[lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be
edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year.
We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for
4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.

Thanks for your efforts.

+1 once the text is properly edited.

see:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


--
This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Proposed change for download page

[Jörg Schmidt]

> -Original Message-
> From: Matthias Seidel [mailto:matthias.sei...@hamburg.de] 
> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 5:31 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed change for download page

> 
> > Please note that the download page for every language needs
> > to be changed.
> 
>  Is this just an info or does someone need to do 
> something additional?
> >>>
> >>> it's just an info for you that you cannot expect that - in this
> >>> special case - this small fix is also done in minutes.
> >>>
>  Hint:
>  i can usually edit the web page myself, just because i 
> don't know at
>  all what exactly i should change at which place in the 
> List boxes of
>  the download page, that's why i posted the problem here 
> on the list.
> >>>
> >>> That's OK and also the best way. The download webpage is 
> a set of many
> >>> files and we use Javascript for the "magic". So, it's not 
> a fast fix
> >>> somewhere in the HTML stuff.
> >>
> >> Since the page moved to GitHub, everyone can open a Pull 
> Request. This
> >> is much easier now than it was with SVN.
> >
> > sure, but the difficulty to understand the download website is still
> > the same. ;-)
> 
> Jörg said he was able to update the page before...
> 
> So he could easily do the work himself. J 

mmh... Actually I said exactly the opposite (or I think I said it), that I 
_can't_ do it.
What I can do is edit 'normal' web pages of our website, but not special pages 
like the download site.

(Sorry, the only reason to write the above is that my statement may have been 
really misleading. Communicating in English is very difficult for me and my 
English is more from DeepL than myself) 



Jörg




Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Proposed change for download page

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Marcus,

Am 28.12.20 um 17:27 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 28.12.20 um 16:58 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Hi Marcus,
>>
>> Am 28.12.20 um 16:23 schrieb Marcus:
>>> Am 28.12.20 um 16:09 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
 Hello,

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:00 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed change for download page
>
> Am 28.12.20 um 15:48 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
>> there was currently in the forum the case of a user who
> believed AOO was also available for Windows as 64Bit.
>> The user points out that he got this impression because on
> our download page the Linux versions are marked, but not the
> Windows version.
>>
>> I would therefore like to suggest that in the future the
> entry for Windows on
> http://www.de.openoffice.org/download/index.html should be
> called "Windows (x86) (EXE)" instead of "Windows (EXE)".
>>
>>
>> Should I write an issue for this, or will someone take care
> of it directly?
>
> no need for an issue. I'll take case of this small fix.
>>
>> Personally, I don't see the need until we have a real x64 version.
>>
>> Unlike on other platforms, the Windows x86 version does run perfectly on
>> 64-bit.
>> And we already provide some code in 64-bit (Shell Extension) when it is
>> installed on Windows x64.
>>
 Thank you.

> Please note that the download page for every language needs
> to be changed.

 Is this just an info or does someone need to do something additional?
>>>
>>> it's just an info for you that you cannot expect that - in this
>>> special case - this small fix is also done in minutes.
>>>
 Hint:
 i can usually edit the web page myself, just because i don't know at
 all what exactly i should change at which place in the List boxes of
 the download page, that's why i posted the problem here on the list.
>>>
>>> That's OK and also the best way. The download webpage is a set of many
>>> files and we use Javascript for the "magic". So, it's not a fast fix
>>> somewhere in the HTML stuff.
>>
>> Since the page moved to GitHub, everyone can open a Pull Request. This
>> is much easier now than it was with SVN.
>
> sure, but the difficulty to understand the download website is still
> the same. ;-)

Jörg said he was able to update the page before...

So he could easily do the work himself. ;-)

Matthias

>
> Marcus
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Proposed change for download page

[Marcus]

Am 28.12.20 um 16:58 schrieb Matthias Seidel:

Hi Marcus,

Am 28.12.20 um 16:23 schrieb Marcus:

Am 28.12.20 um 16:09 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:

Hello,


-Original Message-
From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:00 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Proposed change for download page

Am 28.12.20 um 15:48 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:

there was currently in the forum the case of a user who

believed AOO was also available for Windows as 64Bit.

The user points out that he got this impression because on

our download page the Linux versions are marked, but not the
Windows version.


I would therefore like to suggest that in the future the

entry for Windows on
http://www.de.openoffice.org/download/index.html should be
called "Windows (x86) (EXE)" instead of "Windows (EXE)".



Should I write an issue for this, or will someone take care

of it directly?

no need for an issue. I'll take case of this small fix.


Personally, I don't see the need until we have a real x64 version.

Unlike on other platforms, the Windows x86 version does run perfectly on
64-bit.
And we already provide some code in 64-bit (Shell Extension) when it is
installed on Windows x64.


Thank you.


Please note that the download page for every language needs
to be changed.


Is this just an info or does someone need to do something additional?


it's just an info for you that you cannot expect that - in this
special case - this small fix is also done in minutes.


Hint:
i can usually edit the web page myself, just because i don't know at
all what exactly i should change at which place in the List boxes of
the download page, that's why i posted the problem here on the list.


That's OK and also the best way. The download webpage is a set of many
files and we use Javascript for the "magic". So, it's not a fast fix
somewhere in the HTML stuff.


Since the page moved to GitHub, everyone can open a Pull Request. This
is much easier now than it was with SVN.


sure, but the difficulty to understand the download website is still the 
same. ;-)


Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Proposed change for download page

[Jörg Schmidt]

> -Original Message-
> From: Matthias Seidel [mailto:matthias.sei...@hamburg.de] 
> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:58 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed change for download page
> 
> Hi Marcus,
> 
> Am 28.12.20 um 16:23 schrieb Marcus:
> > Am 28.12.20 um 16:09 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> >>> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:00 PM
> >>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Re: Proposed change for download page
> >>>
> >>> Am 28.12.20 um 15:48 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
>  there was currently in the forum the case of a user who
> >>> believed AOO was also available for Windows as 64Bit.
>  The user points out that he got this impression because on
> >>> our download page the Linux versions are marked, but not the
> >>> Windows version.
> 
>  I would therefore like to suggest that in the future the
> >>> entry for Windows on
> >>> http://www.de.openoffice.org/download/index.html should be
> >>> called "Windows (x86) (EXE)" instead of "Windows (EXE)".
> 
> 
>  Should I write an issue for this, or will someone take care
> >>> of it directly?
> >>>
> >>> no need for an issue. I'll take case of this small fix.
> 
> Personally, I don't see the need until we have a real x64 version.
> 
> Unlike on other platforms, the Windows x86 version does run 
> perfectly on
> 64-bit.
> And we already provide some code in 64-bit (Shell Extension) 
> when it is
> installed on Windows x64.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to justify the labeling as x86.

It is true that most users would not even notice if they were working with a 64 
or 32 bit AOO, were it not for the question of Java.
For exactly this reason the marking x86 is meaningful for the user because an 
omission does not lead to the fact that the user does not notice anything, but 
he gets real problems if he does not know that he must install the JRE in 32 
bit.

Incidentally, the concealment that the Windows version is 32 bit also creates 
the impression that this could be intentional, to conceal a vacancy - exactly 
so the whole thing has already been commented in the forum. 



Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Proposed change for download page

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Marcus,

Am 28.12.20 um 16:23 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 28.12.20 um 16:09 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
>> Hello,
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
>>> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:00 PM
>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Proposed change for download page
>>>
>>> Am 28.12.20 um 15:48 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
 there was currently in the forum the case of a user who
>>> believed AOO was also available for Windows as 64Bit.
 The user points out that he got this impression because on
>>> our download page the Linux versions are marked, but not the
>>> Windows version.

 I would therefore like to suggest that in the future the
>>> entry for Windows on
>>> http://www.de.openoffice.org/download/index.html should be
>>> called "Windows (x86) (EXE)" instead of "Windows (EXE)".


 Should I write an issue for this, or will someone take care
>>> of it directly?
>>>
>>> no need for an issue. I'll take case of this small fix.

Personally, I don't see the need until we have a real x64 version.

Unlike on other platforms, the Windows x86 version does run perfectly on
64-bit.
And we already provide some code in 64-bit (Shell Extension) when it is
installed on Windows x64.

>> Thank you.
>>
>>> Please note that the download page for every language needs
>>> to be changed.
>>
>> Is this just an info or does someone need to do something additional?
>
> it's just an info for you that you cannot expect that - in this
> special case - this small fix is also done in minutes.
>
>> Hint:
>> i can usually edit the web page myself, just because i don't know at
>> all what exactly i should change at which place in the List boxes of
>> the download page, that's why i posted the problem here on the list.
>
> That's OK and also the best way. The download webpage is a set of many
> files and we use Javascript for the "magic". So, it's not a fast fix
> somewhere in the HTML stuff.

Since the page moved to GitHub, everyone can open a Pull Request. This
is much easier now than it was with SVN.

Matthias

>
>>> May I suggest to combine this with the new upcoming release?
>>> Then both
>>> updates can be done together.
>>
>> +1
>
> Thanks
>
> Marcus
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

RE: Proposed change for download page

[Jörg Schmidt]

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] 
> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:42 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed change for download page

> I've prepared the update:
> https://openoffice-org.staged.apache.org/download/index.html
> 
> If it's clearly enough, it will go out together with the new release.

yes, for me this is fine


Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Proposed change for download page

[Marcus]

Am 28.12.20 um 16:23 schrieb Marcus:

Am 28.12.20 um 16:09 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:

-Original Message-
From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:00 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Proposed change for download page

Am 28.12.20 um 15:48 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:

there was currently in the forum the case of a user who

believed AOO was also available for Windows as 64Bit.

The user points out that he got this impression because on

our download page the Linux versions are marked, but not the
Windows version.


I would therefore like to suggest that in the future the

entry for Windows on
http://www.de.openoffice.org/download/index.html should be
called "Windows (x86) (EXE)" instead of "Windows (EXE)".



Should I write an issue for this, or will someone take care

of it directly?

no need for an issue. I'll take case of this small fix.


Thank you.


Please note that the download page for every language needs
to be changed.


Is this just an info or does someone need to do something additional?


it's just an info for you that you cannot expect that - in this special 
case - this small fix is also done in minutes.



Hint:
i can usually edit the web page myself, just because i don't know at 
all what exactly i should change at which place in the List boxes of 
the download page, that's why i posted the problem here on the list.


That's OK and also the best way. The download webpage is a set of many 
files and we use Javascript for the "magic". So, it's not a fast fix 
somewhere in the HTML stuff.



May I suggest to combine this with the new upcoming release?
Then both
updates can be done together.


+1


I've prepared the update:
https://openoffice-org.staged.apache.org/download/index.html

If it's clearly enough, it will go out together with the new release.

Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Proposed change for download page

[Marcus]

Am 28.12.20 um 16:39 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

https://www.openoffice.org/download/ also refers to OS X <=10.6 versions, which 
we do not provide.

That should be removed as well, IMO.


when you select this item, then you get a hint what you can do instead. 
IMHO we have agreed in the past that this is helpful for the users.


Marcus




On Dec 28, 2020, at 9:48 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:

there was currently in the forum the case of a user who believed AOO was also 
available for Windows as 64Bit.
The user points out that he got this impression because on our download page 
the Linux versions are marked, but not the Windows version.

I would therefore like to suggest that in the future the entry for Windows on 
http://www.de.openoffice.org/download/index.html should be called "Windows (x86) (EXE)" 
instead of "Windows (EXE)".


Should I write an issue for this, or will someone take care of it directly?


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Proposed change for download page

[Jim Jagielski]

https://www.openoffice.org/download/ also refers to OS X <=10.6 versions, which 
we do not provide.

That should be removed as well, IMO.

> On Dec 28, 2020, at 9:48 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> there was currently in the forum the case of a user who believed AOO was also 
> available for Windows as 64Bit.
> The user points out that he got this impression because on our download page 
> the Linux versions are marked, but not the Windows version.
> 
> I would therefore like to suggest that in the future the entry for Windows on 
> http://www.de.openoffice.org/download/index.html should be called "Windows 
> (x86) (EXE)" instead of "Windows (EXE)".
> 
> 
> Should I write an issue for this, or will someone take care of it directly?
> 
> 
> 
> greetings,
> Jörg
> 
> 
> -
> 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: Proposed change for download page

[Marcus]

Am 28.12.20 um 16:09 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:

Hello,


-Original Message-
From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:00 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Proposed change for download page

Am 28.12.20 um 15:48 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:

there was currently in the forum the case of a user who

believed AOO was also available for Windows as 64Bit.

The user points out that he got this impression because on

our download page the Linux versions are marked, but not the
Windows version.


I would therefore like to suggest that in the future the

entry for Windows on
http://www.de.openoffice.org/download/index.html should be
called "Windows (x86) (EXE)" instead of "Windows (EXE)".



Should I write an issue for this, or will someone take care

of it directly?

no need for an issue. I'll take case of this small fix.


Thank you.


Please note that the download page for every language needs
to be changed.


Is this just an info or does someone need to do something additional?


it's just an info for you that you cannot expect that - in this special 
case - this small fix is also done in minutes.



Hint:
i can usually edit the web page myself, just because i don't know at all what 
exactly i should change at which place in the List boxes of the download page, 
that's why i posted the problem here on the list.


That's OK and also the best way. The download webpage is a set of many 
files and we use Javascript for the "magic". So, it's not a fast fix 
somewhere in the HTML stuff.



May I suggest to combine this with the new upcoming release?
Then both
updates can be done together.


+1


Thanks

Marcus

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Proposed change for download page

[Jörg Schmidt]

Hello, 

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] 
> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:00 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed change for download page
> 
> Am 28.12.20 um 15:48 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
> > there was currently in the forum the case of a user who 
> believed AOO was also available for Windows as 64Bit.
> > The user points out that he got this impression because on 
> our download page the Linux versions are marked, but not the 
> Windows version.
> > 
> > I would therefore like to suggest that in the future the 
> entry for Windows on 
> http://www.de.openoffice.org/download/index.html should be 
> called "Windows (x86) (EXE)" instead of "Windows (EXE)".
> > 
> > 
> > Should I write an issue for this, or will someone take care 
> of it directly?
> 
> no need for an issue. I'll take case of this small fix.

Thank you.

> Please note that the download page for every language needs 
> to be changed.

Is this just an info or does someone need to do something additional?

Hint:
i can usually edit the web page myself, just because i don't know at all what 
exactly i should change at which place in the List boxes of the download page, 
that's why i posted the problem here on the list.

> May I suggest to combine this with the new upcoming release? 
> Then both 
> updates can be done together.

+1


Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Proposed change for download page

[Marcus]

Am 28.12.20 um 15:48 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:

there was currently in the forum the case of a user who believed AOO was also 
available for Windows as 64Bit.
The user points out that he got this impression because on our download page 
the Linux versions are marked, but not the Windows version.

I would therefore like to suggest that in the future the entry for Windows on 
http://www.de.openoffice.org/download/index.html should be called "Windows (x86) (EXE)" 
instead of "Windows (EXE)".


Should I write an issue for this, or will someone take care of it directly?


no need for an issue. I'll take case of this small fix.

Please note that the download page for every language needs to be changed.

May I suggest to combine this with the new upcoming release? Then both 
updates can be done together.


Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Proposed change for download page

[Jörg Schmidt]

Hello,

there was currently in the forum the case of a user who believed AOO was also 
available for Windows as 64Bit.
The user points out that he got this impression because on our download page 
the Linux versions are marked, but not the Windows version.

I would therefore like to suggest that in the future the entry for Windows on 
http://www.de.openoffice.org/download/index.html should be called "Windows 
(x86) (EXE)" instead of "Windows (EXE)".


Should I write an issue for this, or will someone take care of it directly?



greetings,
Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

[Marcus]

Am 28.12.20 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Kovacs:


On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:

Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog
article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
moot with the actual release?


Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more 
often.


First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the first 
time that we tell them what we did and why.


The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently it 
is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more 
frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome.


On third:  In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore 
people will show up to look at the Release Candidate.


but then we shouldn't forget to mention the download location of the 
RCs. Only then more people can help to test.


Marcus



My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the blog 
post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the people.


So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder, we 
usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team works 
more behind the scene.




Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release announcement...?


On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

Hi -

I made extensive edits for consistency and language.

Patricia, please take a look if you wish.

Regards,
Dave

On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt  
wrote:





-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was:
[lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be
edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year.
We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for
4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.

Thanks for your efforts.

+1 once the text is properly edited.

see:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

[Jörg Schmidt]

> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 1:18 PM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: 
> [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually 
> post a blog
> article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
> moot with the actual release?

Yes, absolutely!

If this is contradicted I will immediately start to add to the release notes. 

> Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release 
> announcement...?

No!


Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

[Jim Jagielski]

All good points, which was exactly what I was looking, and hoping, for. Thx. 
Glad to see that people are actually thinking hard about these things not only 
from a community development aspect, but also from a, for lack of a better 
word, strategic viewpoint.

> On Dec 28, 2020, at 8:13 AM, Peter Kovacs  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog
>> article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
>> moot with the actual release?
> 
> Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more often.
> 
> First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the first time 
> that we tell them what we did and why.
> 
> The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently it is 
> still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more frequently, so 
> if we deliver a week later that would be awesome.
> 
> On third:  In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore people 
> will show up to look at the Release Candidate.
> 
> My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the blog post. 
> On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the people.
> 
> So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder, we 
> usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team works more 
> behind the scene.
> 
>> 
>> Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release announcement...?
>> 
>>> On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi -
>>> 
>>> I made extensive edits for consistency and language.
>>> 
>>> Patricia, please take a look if you wish.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
 On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
 
 
 
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was:
> [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
> 
> Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be
> edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year.
> We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for
> 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.
> 
> Thanks for your efforts.
> 
> +1 once the text is properly edited.
 see:
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814
 
 
 
 
 -
 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 
>> 
>> 
> -- 
> This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org 
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org 
> 

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

[Simon Phipps]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 1:13 PM Peter Kovacs  wrote:

>
> On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog
> > article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
> > moot with the actual release?
>
> Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more
> often.
>
> First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the first
> time that we tell them what we did and why.
>
> The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently it
> is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more
> frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome.
>
> On third:  In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore
> people will show up to look at the Release Candidate.
>
> My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the blog
> post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the people.
>
> So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder, we
> usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team works
> more behind the scene.
>

One more "pro" reason is SEO. By creating a blog post about the issue -
preferably quoting the error message the user sees as that's what they are
likely to type into the search box - search engines are more likely to
direct users to the project's explanation than to other locations.

S.

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

[Peter Kovacs]

On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:

Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog
article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
moot with the actual release?


Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more often.

First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the first 
time that we tell them what we did and why.


The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently it 
is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more 
frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome.


On third:  In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore 
people will show up to look at the Release Candidate.


My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the blog 
post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the people.


So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder, we 
usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team works 
more behind the scene.




Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release announcement...?


On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

Hi -

I made extensive edits for consistency and language.

Patricia, please take a look if you wish.

Regards,
Dave


On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:




-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was:
[lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be
edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year.
We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for
4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.

Thanks for your efforts.

+1 once the text is properly edited.

see:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814




-
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


--
This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [lazy consensus] Addition in release notes because of Big Sur (was: How should we proceed with BigSur?)

[Marcus]

Am 27.12.20 um 19:30 schrieb Dave Fisher:

On Dec 27, 2020, at 5:13 AM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:

On Dec 27, 2020, at 04:39, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:

-Original Message-
From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:pe...@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 12:50 PM
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [lazy consensus] Addition in release notes
because of Big Sur (was: How should we proceed with BigSur?)

How about we make a blog post instead?

We can describe

What the impact is.

What Versions are affected.

Where our research is.

And what our plans are.


you mean in: https://blogs.apache.org? If so, I would find that even better.

But who can do that? I myself do not feel able to do it because:
-my english is too bad for longer text


If you do know the content for longer writing I may be able to help with 
editing. I am a native speaker of the English dialect of English and have near 
native reading, writing, and listening skills in the US dialect, which I would 
use for an AOO blog.


The proposed text is now in Confluence. (Thanks Jörg!) I’ve made many edits.

Here it is: 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 



I've also made some changes.

@Patricia:
It would be great when you can have an eye on the wording and 
formulations before we put this on the blog.


Thanks

Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

[Jim Jagielski]

Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog
article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
moot with the actual release?

Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release announcement...?

> On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
> 
> Hi -
> 
> I made extensive edits for consistency and language.
> 
> Patricia, please take a look if you wish.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
>> On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:w...@apache.org] 
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM
>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: 
>>> [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
>>> 
>>> Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be 
>>> edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year. 
>>> We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for 
>>> 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your efforts.
>>> 
>>> +1 once the text is properly edited.
>> 
>> see:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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: AOO 4.1.9 Info

[Marcus]

Am 27.12.20 um 14:49 schrieb Jim Jagielski:

The AOO419 branch has been created.
The version numbers, et.al. have been bumped.
The Release Status page has been cloned: 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.9


thanks a lot for making this effort - and to wear the release manager 
hat one more time. :-)


Marcus


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: AOO 4.1.9 Info

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi all,

Am 27.12.20 um 14:49 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> The AOO419 branch has been created.
> The version numbers, et.al. have been bumped.
> The Release Status page has been cloned: 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.9

First test builds for Windows are available at:

https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-419-Test/

Regards,

   Matthias

> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature