Re: AOO Governance (was RE: Next release and gbuild)

[donaldupre .]

Not only it is possible to compel, it is imperative for a viable project.
As Stalin once said, "When there's a person, there's a problem." :)
Lack of management hierarchy just can't work in the long run.
The history of OpenOffice also shows its peak was when an organization with
a clear command structure developed it.
Lazy consensus is in fact the manner to operate because fluid is lazy...
Accomplishments depend not only on the capacity, capability, and
willingness of contributors, but mainly on the way they are being guided
and steered.

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:

> Technically, we do not have a management hierarchy on Apache projects,
> although there are some rather limited governance roles.  There can be
> self-organizing *informal* teams that are basically people working together
> for some common within-project purpose and those are fluid and definitely
> self-generated.  There is no holacracy.  It is important for onlookers to
> understand there is no executive and there is no *command* structure.  It
> is not possible to compel anything.
>
> There is a form of status with regard to privileges, in that committers
> are trusted to review and approve the submissions of other contributors and
> can do more without oversight (while review is always possible).  There is
> also a limited form of governance invested in members of the Project
> Management Committee (PMC) which have binding votes on release candidates
> and on procedural and personnel matters such as inviting contributors to
> become committers and to become members of the PMC.  This is all striving
> toward sustainability of the project.
>
> Effort happens here *only* if someone steps in and operates in a
> consensus-seeking manner.  What is accomplished depends on the capacity,
> capability, and willingness of such contributors.  The sustainability of
> the project depends in part on how contributed effort leads to the
> cultivation and preparation of additional contributors so that capacity is
> continually renewed.
>
> Finally, there is a form of oversight, in that the project is accountable
> to the foundation for operating in accordance with the foundation bylaws
> and other principles and practices employed across Apache projects.  The
> Chair of the PMC is ratified by the Board of the Foundation and is an
> Officer of the Foundation (i.e., Apache Software Foundation Vice President
> for Apache OpenOffice).  The Chair is accountable to the Board while in all
> other respects being just another member of the PMC.
>
> For Apache OpenOffice, there is more about this form of operation at <
> https://s.apache.org/mSVG>.
>
> For an indication of the status of the project over time, the AOO
> quarterly reports to the Board included in approved Board minutes are
> extracted and collected for historical convenience at <
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/pmc/BoardReportsArchive>.
> The latest accepted quarterly report is maintained at <
> https://s.apache.org/iH9U>.
>
> The next report (for the January-March quarter) will be submitted to the
> April 20, 2016, meeting of the ASF Board.  It will be added to the history
> after subsequent approval of the minutes of that meeting. (The complete ASF
> Board Minutes that are the authoritative source of the extracts can be
> found via <http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/calendar.html>.)
>
>  - Dennis
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: donaldupre . [mailto:donaldu...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 00:11
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Next release and gbuild
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
> >
> > > Either someone steps in or we just have a team of people do things.
> > >
> >
> > Holacracy is not a good idea.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: AOO Governance (was RE: Next release and gbuild)

[donaldupre .]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:

> When I was working I gave up some of my freedom to do what I wanted in
> exchange for being paid to do what other people told me.
>
> We all do...


> I retired when I had accumulated enough investments that the financial
> improvement from the money Sun was paying me no longer outweighed the
> benefit of being able to decide for myself what to do with my time. My
> 10 a.m. horseback riding lesson this morning will be far higher priority
> than OpenOffice debug.
>
> I do not see being a "Release Manager" as carrying any authority at all
> over others. I might need to persuade, suggest, beg, and plead, but I
> would not expect to be able to compel, not even to the limited extent I
> could when I was a project leader in industry.
>
> This is not the place for a philosophical debate, let's agree to disagree
:)
I hope a good release manager / keeper of the release checklist will be
found soon.


> If the term "Release Manager" is creating an idea of a job something
> like being a manager in industry, maybe we need a more realistic term
> such as "Keeper of the Release Checklist".
>
> Patricia

Re: Next release and gbuild

[donaldupre .]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:

> Either someone steps in or we just have a team of people do things.
>

Holacracy is not a good idea.

Re: AOO Governance (was RE: Next release and gbuild)

[donaldupre .]

In the same way management in your professional experience handled
disagreement, disrespect, waste, inefficiency etc. that sometimes happen
when people work together.
You did offer to learn to be a release manager, it means that some sort of
"management" is needed?
How someone here suggested making a release without a manger is beyond me...

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Patricia Shanahan  wrote:

> I am really, really curious. How would you recommend the hypothetical AOO
> management hierarchy go about compelling me to do anything?
>
> On 3/17/2016 10:41 AM, donaldupre . wrote:
>
>> Not only it is possible to compel, it is imperative for a viable project.
>> As Stalin once said, "When there's a person, there's a problem." :)
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Restore the website logo

[donaldupre .]

+1 if you mean the balloons and confetti at the upper left corner of the
home page.

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 3:15 AM, JZA  wrote:

> Hello, I want to congratulate the project for 160M download. However I
> would want to discuss how long should this logo be up  there. IMHO is a bit
> distracting which is great for the time of the annoucement, but I also
> think we should restore the logo in a set timeframe. I think 2 weeks is a
> good time for the logo to be, but I just want to open the discussion about
> policies for having special logos such as end of the year festivities,
> download and project anniversaries.
>
> Regards.
>
> --
> Alexandro Colorado
> Apache OpenOffice Contributor
> 9060 55AB FFD2 2F02 0E1A  3409 599C 14FC 9450 D3CF
>

Re: Calc needs major overhaul

[donaldupre .]

Did you manage to perform this in some other spreadsheet program?

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:17 AM,  wrote:

>
> Please take a look at the following site.
>
>
> http://wsatellite.web.fc2.com/research/openoffice/calcform01.html
> 
>

Re: A Complaint

[donaldupre .]

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 7:35 AM, J. Myers  wrote:

>  I installed the Open Office 4.1 thinking I was doing a good thing ---
> just adding a processing program that was cheaper than Word.


How can Word be compatible with Star Writer?


> Now
> I regret it and I am more than angry.  I am furious.  Before loading
> Open Office 4.1, I had and was using Star Writer (from Sun).  I was
> using that particular program because it let me do things "outside
> the box".
>
>   I am a writer and I had hundreds of manuscript pages stored
> onto my computer.  In addition to that there were many records
> and account pages stored in Star Writer.  I don't use a template
> for my account pages.  I do my own so that I can get more on
> one page.  Some of my documents were written  for children's
> books and did not fit any normal template because the words
> went around some of the illustrations. Not any more.  I will need
> to make corrections on hundreds of documents and that will take
> me many hours and many days.
>
>  When I installed Open Office  my Star Writer program completely
> disappeared out of my computer.  Who gave you the right to destroy
> my property that I paid for?


You did during installation, when accepting the license agreement!


>   And when I called up my records,
> they had gone crazy. The lines and numbers were scattered all over
> to fit some Open Office template, I presume.  What was one page is
> now 5 pages and all my formatting is gone.
>
>  To describe my emotions toward Open Office as RAGE is putting it
> mildly.  The Open Office 3.1 tolerated Star Writer.  I had installed
> both and used both.  Why did you change it?  Why is Open Office 4.1 so
> intolerant and oppressive?  Also, why can't Open Office offer the
> option of NO AUTOMATIC SETTINGS or FUNCTIONS?  People like me
> who have their own ideas should be able to work outside the box
> if they want to, but still be able to forward the program or store the
> program as an Open Office document.
>

IMO your rage should be directed towards yourself for not creating backups
of your work.
and also for being naive to expect no compatibility issues with an ancient
software like Star Office.
This is just my personal opinion as a neutral reader of this mailing list.

Re: [REPORT] Issue Clearance Quality + Technical Debt

[donaldupre .]

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton 
wrote:

>
> [orcmid]
>
> I don't know.  I haven't looked for such information and I am not aware of
> any form it might be available in.
>
> Considering how different projects can be, I am not certain what lessons
> might transfer from one to another.
>
> Do you envision how having such information would be helpful in assessing
> the effectiveness of this project's handling of reported issues and how
> that is reflected in improvements to the product?
>
> The industry averages of the various parameters can serve us as quality
objectives.

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

Re: [REPORT] Issue Clearance Quality + Technical Debt

[donaldupre .]

Very interesting, thank you.
Perhaps the reduced activity is an indication for the saturation state of
the project (i.e. all the possible bugs and features already exist in
Bugzilla)?
Is it possible to compare this information with other office suites?

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton 
wrote:

> [BCC to Project Management Committee and users@ oo.a.o]
>
> SUMMARY
>
> The top-level analysis of Bugzilla issue handling has been completed for
> all issues opened on the project through December 31, 2015.
>
> The complete tabulation is in the PDF document at  >.
>
> It remains the case that since the establishment of Apache OpenOffice as
> an ASF Top Level Project in November, 2012, the accrual of unresolved
> issues exceeds 40%.  That is, for every 100 new issues, on the average more
> than 40 of them will be unresolved indefinitely.
>
> In contrast, although there is a very large number of unresolved issues
> that remain in the Bugzilla from its history as part of OpenOffice.org,
> that previous technical debt was, proportionally, under 20%.
>
> Some highlights:
>
>  * Even though the monthly rate of new issues and comments on issues has
> been decreasing significantly since mid-2014, the rate of technical debt as
> the proportion of unresolved issues has not improved.
>
>  * Although a reduction to 35% unresolved-issue is seen in the last 5
> months of 2015, this may be distorted by issues created and then resolved
> in the staging of AOO 4.1.2 release candidates and QA on the candidates.
> Results for the first-quarter of 2016 are needed to determine if this is a
> new trend or a hiccup.
>
> DETAIL AND QUALITY MATTERS
>
> This is a rough analysis, although the consistent trend is difficult to
> explain away.
>
> Refinement requires a closer look at the nature of issues and
> understanding of exactly what resolution means, not just what being left
> unresolved means.
>
> There is also a suspected disconnect with regard to what is considered an
> issue and how the ways of closing an issue are actually applied.
>
>  * Closing of a new issue as a duplicate qualifies as a resolution.  The
> incidence of long-standing issues that continue to receive duplicate
> reports is useful to understand in this case, and that requires more detail.
>
>  * Some issues are closed as Resolved Fixed when the fact of the matter is
> that there was insufficient detail to understand and confirm the issue and
> the reporting party failed to provide additional information (if it was
> even requested).
>
>  * Some comments on issues tailgate possibly-different problems onto known
> ones, although the resemblance may be superficial and the issues need to be
> split.
>
>  * Enhancement/feature requests are not distinguished.
>
>  * Resolved issues are sometimes closed without obtaining confirmation
> that incorporation of the identified resolution in distributed code
> actually addresses the originally-reported difficulty.
>
>  * Some issue reports are closed as not issues because they are declared
> user problems and kicked to the Community Forum.
>
> These may all have small effects.  We will know only by looking more
> closely into Bugzilla details.
>
> The last case deserves more careful attention.
>
> The next-in-line users of Apache OpenOffice distributions consist of
> around 50 million users who are mainly individuals and 87% of whom are
> using Microsoft Windows.  Such casual users, whatever their limited
> experience in trouble-shooting and describing problems, are the main users
> of this software.  The usability issues they encounter are important to the
> project; even though they may not involve bugs in the code, they point to
> defects in the product.  Capturing those experiences and recognizing them
> as real issues for the user community is important.  That feedback is
> important for determining and making available workarounds and advice.  It
> can also inform changes to the software that might ameliorate those
> difficulties for non-experts.  Here's a simple example: having an
> easy-to-use option for resetting the user profile.
>
> FUTURE STEPS
>
> Along with extending the current analysis into the first quarter of 2016,
> exploration of the nature of unresolved and resolved issues will be
> introduced.
>
>
>  - Dennis
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Libre Office Development Compared to OpenOffice Development

[donaldupre .]

Hard to see that happens as MS is a sponsor of ASF... :
http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Chuck Davis  wrote:

> But I agree that
> open source needs to take the innovation prize away from MS.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Proposal: AOO 4.2.0

[donaldupre .]

+1 a roadmap is a must.

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 1:53 PM, FR web forum  wrote:

> Hello dev,
> Is it possible to provide an explicit release date for next 4.2.0?
> To avoid a previous denigration campaign like for 4.1.2.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Updating the WHY section of www.openoffice.org

[donaldupre .]

The "Why" page is important and shouldn't be discarded.
The advantages over MS Office are obvious...
It is far less obvious how AOO is currently better than LO / Gnome Office /
Calligra Suite.
The references to scientific papers in Gnumeric home page are a good
example for a convincing "Why" page.

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Jan Høydahl  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I filed bug https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126777 about
> outdated WHY sub page "Office 2003 EOL”.
> See issue for details. Dennis requested that the discussion continues in
> this mailing list.
>
> My initial concern was that an outdated web page looks really bad,
> referring to 2014 as a date yet to come signals that noone actively cares
> for the web page.
>
> Then there is the policy issue of mocking competitors. You find several
> passages in the “WHY” section talking about Microsoft Office and cost.
> Perhaps someone should give the whole WHY section some love and care and
> make sure we are well within Apache policies.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: OpenOffice and SourceForge: cruel wedding

[donaldupre .]

+1 for a divorce :)

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Roberto Galoppini <
roberto.galopp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for heads up, both the account and its creatives have been blocked.
>
> Roberto
>
> 2016-01-07 15:38 GMT+01:00 FR web forum :
>
> >
> > Today, we have 2 users that have pay for a fake OpenOffice2015
> >
> >
> >
> https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=l&ai=Cqhy-1neOVt6KL-WpiQackZzAAYfp7MoH34WD-LgC1MrWdxABIIyB2hdg-4GAgLAKoAGp7IrZA8gBAeACAKgDAcgDmwSqBPsBT9D93xyCmQFS_5cpebROSJIQQYhzPjW-d8gS6i5e9e6WcA9njfDOVKAw8-SrAE-m1FAWOPwK7I8kJLuzeW18mmM3gOHS1aSw4C6NYt0wS9AKBjIPEo_getXfGxWWSaHMgh8Xq80OerSeu1x7X9o0SkdbYCBdCkfTipVtmML8em6ClO-YlXOwZQCyaAfDexZH-XvEUA5LfIu3rNFvn2B7AgfcRm9BBQ9Y1Ws7O_TN38v09G1YWLj9LSzfKWZiCJ3xbHztJJPsC1xQfhsfp5Wfc_aSOAMj5hR1OzHdfsJ0L9mW4DQvcaunuhh53UgHQJwICQwS32fUA_Lo7SLgBAGAB7-T9SaoB6a-G9gHAQ&num=1&sig=AOD64_0CRVAtU-eX-IKwATP1aS0yl-nOBg&client=ca-pub-4006818487458500&nm=27&nx=263&ny=22&mb=2&nb=0&clkt=144&adurl=http://opf2.fisseef.com/fr%3Futm_campaign%3Dopenoffice2%26utm_source%3Dgoogle
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [QUESTION] rights to change Priority, Importance and Severity of an issue

[donaldupre .]

A complex interface with many fields can deter users from reporting bugs
and suggesting improvements.
The reporting process should be the quickest and easiest possible.

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Marcus  wrote:

it won't change anything for us if we limit the usage of these fields. when
> the issue reporter (or any other user) is changing these fields, then
> nothing will change for us. It's up to us (developer, QA engineer, etc.) to
> evaluate the real priority/urgency and then to take further steps.
>
> But it could help to argue a bit less why it isn't a P1 issue or why there
> isn't an answer/solution within hours. ;-)
>
> Marcus
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Proposed Calc "Find & Replace" dialog enhancements

[donaldupre .]

Twitter with Bugzilla link to vote isn't a better way?
I rarely visit the forum and blog.

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Andrea Pescetti 
wrote:

> On 12/11/2015 Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>
>> Recently I fixed a bad 9 year old bug #60307 with at least 6 duplicates
>> ...
>> today also fixed #35093, an infamous 11 year
>> old 15 vote issue in Calc
>>
>
> Thanks! Indeed these are the little but very valuable usability
> improvements that users appreciate.
>
> Now I am wondering what other enhancements to that dialog would be good to
>> make while it's fresh in my mind. ...
>> Any other proposals?
>>
>
> There was the issue of persistence of search options. I don't have links
> now, but this will likely require some thinking. It is mostly addressed by
> the "Extra" options visibility you already mention (in short, the issue is:
> if I choose to search backwards once, the next time -even in a new session?
> didn't check- I do a search I will find it pre-selected, but it won't be
> visible in the dialog due to the Extra section being collapsed by default).
>
>  Should we ask our current users what they want (how?)?
>>
>
> The best way to involve users is to do BOTH of the following:
>
> 1) Open a discussion on the forum (and this was already done)
>
> 2) Create a simple blog post on https://blogs.apache.org/ooo/ linking to
> it. Even if you just copy/paste your message it is fine, but it is
> important that the blog reflects major news. Since it points at the forum,
> you should disable comments so that we capture all feedback in one channel.
> Do you need author access to the blog? Infra can arrange it if needed, just
> ask here in case.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Proposed Calc "Find & Replace" dialog enhancements

[donaldupre .]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Damjan Jovanovic 
wrote:

> Hi
>
> Recently I fixed a bad 9 year old bug #60307 with at least 6 duplicates
> [and still broken in at least LO 4.2.8.2 :-)], now allowing searching for
> cells by the value displayed after formatting (eg. 30/11/2015 formatted
> into "30 November 2015" can be found when you search for "November" with
> "Search in" set to "Values"). Also through repeated failures until I copied
> how Writer already does it, today also fixed #35093, an infamous 11 year
> old 15 vote issue in Calc ("Current selection only" should automatically be
> checked if the "Find & Replace" dialog is opened with cells already
> selected; since users expect this from other spreadsheets and the option is
> invisible by default, it can cause wrong cells to change when doing
> "Replace").
>
> Now I am wondering what other enhancements to that dialog would be good to
> make while it's fresh in my mind. Some ideas from Bugzilla:
>
> Visibility of options. In a comment on #87032 it is suggested the dialog
> should always be expanded so all options are visible, but #39453 is all
> about trying to shrink it as it hides cells under it. #39453 was filed in
> 2004 when monitors were smaller and had lower resolutions, so dialog size
> mattered more, but small devices are becoming ubiquitous today too. If the
> dialog should remain expandable, which options should be visible with it
> contracted? Comments in #35093 propose including "Current selection only"
> and "Regular expressions", although I think the "Search in" is far more
> commonly used than "Regular expressions".
>
> Search in what? #106857 wants the default to be "Values" instead of the
> current "Formulas", but Excel (2007) uses "Formulas", so it might surprise
> users even though it is more natural.
>
> Values.

Columns or rows? #106857 again wants "Columns" as default even though Excel
> (2007) has rows.
>
> Should be connected with : Tools - Options... - OpenOffice Calc - General
- Input settings - Press Enter to move selection Down. (i.e. if Down then
search within column, if Right then search within row etc.)

Use the value of the cell under the cursor as the find text? #73544 asks
> for this. Calc currently uses the last value searched for instead, as does
> Excel (2007). Instead of the cell under the cursor, we could use a single
> selected cell instead: it is rather hard to select only 1 cell by accident
> (with the cursor on it, you have to Ctrl+Click it or Shift+Right+Left), and
> you wouldn't need to search just 1 cell, so I think it's safe to treat a
> single selected cell as the find text. Another AOO innovation?
>
> Selection during the dialog? If cells are selected during the dialog,
> should we automatically check the "Current selection only" box? We
> currently uncheck it and gray it out if cells are deselected during the
> dialog, but only enable it without checking it if cells are selected again.
> Excel (2007) doesn't even have this option: if cells are selected only they
> will be searched/replaced, if no cells are selected all will be. If we want
> to copy Excel's behaviour then we should check it on reselection. But
> Writer doesn't do that for multi-line text selections either, so it should
> probably be changed too (and other apps?).
>
> If cells are pre-selected then check box.

Any other proposals? Should we ask our current users what they want (how?)?
>
>  Find All should behave like Excel i.e. list of results with click
directing to document.

Thank you
> Damjan
>

Re: Remembering Ian Lynch in 4.1.2 announcement

[donaldupre .]

Well said JZA, yet a mention in the release announcement is appropriate
only if the deceased worked on it directly. That's my 2 cents.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:41 AM, JZA  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:00 AM, Jürgen Schmidt 
> wrote:
>
> > On 27/10/15 23:52, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > > I was wondering whether we should remember Ian Lynch at the end of the
> > > 4.1.2 Release announcement, with a sentence like
> > >
> > > "The OpenOffice community dedicates version 4.1.2 to the memory of Ian
> > > Lynch, a member of the OpenOffice Project Management Committee and a
> key
> > > contributor to marketing and education efforts, who passed away earlier
> > > this year" [of course please adjust and fix in case]
> > >
> > > I have no idea on whether this is appropriate or not. I'm rather
> neutral
> > > on the issue. Feedback welcome. Our memorial for Ian is at
> > > http://www.apache.org/memorials/ian_lynch.html
> > >
> >
> >
> > my personal opinion is that we should keep the release announcement
> > focused on the product. People behind and/or involved the project can be
> > addressed in a separate blog where we can also remember project members
> > who passed away.
> >
> > People leave the project or became less active (including me) and new
> > people started to become more active and do more and more. I suggest to
> > focus on the new fresh blood that can make the difference in the future.
> >
> > Juergen
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
> ​I disagree with that view. To focus on the product, well we already have
> companies for that. We are not a company, we are a community. And we dont
> have 'products' we have 'projects'. The difference? well to start a project
> is something that people can participate, not only purchase. So people
> participation is key to the project. People are key to the project.
>
> FLOSS communities like KDE, Gnome, etc, have struggled but also succeed in
> adressing the people behind it. This is just a great idea to do exactly
> that in our community.
>
> Also the last line doesn't really make sense, how can we 'focus on the new
> fresh blood' exactly? You mean dedicating the release after some n00b who
> just got in the project, or writing a blog post about them... How can we
> focus on fresh blood if they havent done anything yet, what would we write
> about exactly?
>
> --
> Alexandro Colorado
> Apache OpenOffice Contributor
> 9060 55AB FFD2 2F02 0E1A  3409 599C 14FC 9450 D3CF
>

Re: About voting

[donaldupre .]

Thanks!

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti 
wrote:

> donaldupre wrote:
>
>> I was wondering, why is it necessary to vote for a minor release (4.1.1 to
>> 4.1.2)?
>>
>
> Because a release is an official act at Apache. It doesn't matter if it is
> a minor or major release. You can find all answers at
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>
> Is a unanimous vote necessary for a release?
>>
>
> No. See above for details. That said, it makes sense to address the
> concerns raised by others.
>
> Where can voting history per release be found?
>>
>
> Only in the dev list archives. But, even if this in theory would be
> possible, it never happened that we released a Release Candidate that was
> met by a significant number of -1s.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

About voting

[donaldupre .]

Hi
I was wondering, why is it necessary to vote for a minor release (4.1.1 to
4.1.2)?
Voting for a major release makes sense.
Is a unanimous vote necessary for a release?
Where can voting history per release be found?
It is interesting to see how voting results predicted the actual public
response.
Regards,
Don

Re: NeoShine: ribbon introduction

[donaldupre .]

"You've gotta be original, because if you're like someone else, what do
they need you for?" - Bernadette Peters

I like to see as much as possible of my document on the screen, regardless
of screen aspect ratio or ribbon orientation (sidebar or horizontal).

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Rory O'Farrell  wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:55:03 -0500
> Mauricio Baeza  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 10/16/2015 10:47 AM, Mathias Röllig wrote:
> > >> Please no ribbon.
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> >
> > +10
>
> I don't see the ribbon structure doing anything that the Sidebar doesn't
> or couldn't do.  With the current fashion for landscape screens the Sidebar
> makes more sense to me.
>
> --
> Rory O'Farrell 
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: OpenOffice 4.1.2 release date

[donaldupre .]

I think an exact release date is a must.
"A deadline is negative inspiration. Still, it's better than no inspiration
at all." - Rita Mae Brown


On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

>
> On 09/28/2015 03:49 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > I've been very reluctant so far to provide an explicit release date
> > for OpenOffice 4.1.2, because of some processes that were not under
> > control yet. A generic "late 2015" or "last quarter 2015" would be
> > all you got from me. This is still true, but I want it to be very
> > clear that we are targeting October not December here.
> >
> > There are at least two good reasons for us to target October.
> >
> > On one side, patience is over. Users deserve some good news. We, the
> > volunteers, need to feel useful and involved again. And, for a lot
> > of different reasons, everyone (including people you would never
> > imagine) would be happy to see an OpenOffice release in the very
> > short term. So OpenOffice 4.1.2 must be released as soon as we are
> > able to ship a release.
> >
> > On the other side, progress is remarkable lately. The last weeks
> > marked a surge in activity that is unprecedented in months. This
> > week is ApacheCon Europe time, so some actions (not decisions of
> > course) will appear on the dev list after the fact, but I expect
> > that we iron out the last Infra blockers. And QA will be reactivated
> > as soon as possible, with some volunteers already lining up for
> > receiving bugs to check.
> >
> > Here is a list of the current blockers:
> >
> > 1) Bugfixes: most of the patches for 4.1.2, especially the "risky"
> > ones, have been merged; we still have a few left, as well as a few
> > fixes still to apply to the already merged code; but this is mostly
> > done. Besides the really wanted bugfixes, the rest will be left out
> > of 4.1.2 if it delays our release.
> >
> > 2) SNAPSHOT binaries (actually SNAPSHOT will have to be moved due to
> > a Mac build breaker in the CoinMP upgrade, now fixed) must be
> > available; they will come; we will not use the buildbots since they
> > are not usable for release builds due to wrong OS versions.
> >
> > 3) We need a place to upload dev builds to. That place is ready as
> > of today at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/ ; but
> > it will still need some Infra work (access and quota settings) which
> > I expect to have ready soon.
> >
> > 4) QA. We need and want good QA on the snapshot, so that our first
> > Release Candidate has high chances of approval; 4.1.2 won't be
> > revolutionary after all, it is a normal release. But several people
> > and processes have changed, and we need a team of people ready to
> > check the builds.
> >
> > So a realistic schedule, which is to be used mostly as a guideline
> > but which we should aim at respecting, is:
> >
> > - Now (28 Sept, but also earlier): The AOO410 branch is in review
> > then commit mode. Don't commit to it unless you know what you are
> > doing. We can't enforce a delay between committing to trunk and
> > AOO410, but be careful.
> >
> > - This week (by 4 Oct): we get all we need from Infra in terms of
> > access, disk space and information; last bugfixes get committed and
> > from that point on we only fix... the bugfixes themselves.
> >
> > - By 7 Oct: we have a build available for testing (I do hope we have
> > it earlier, a build from the current SNAPSHOT tag would work too!);
> > we give QA and all volunteers a full week to test this snapshot.
> >
> > - By 14 Oct: we have feedback from QA, hopefully we manage to
> > quickly apply fixes
>
> back to this...we are now at RC2. We seem to have a few release
> blockers that have come in over the last few days, and actually
> there was a change applied to issue 107619 --
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=107619
>
> (this one was already a release blocker)
> the might be nice to include.
>
> Is there any chance we will got to RC3 early next week and use that
> for voting?
>
> >
> > - By 18 Oct: the Release Candidate is available as both source and
> > binaries. We vote.
> >
> > - By 25 Oct: Vote passes. Site is ready. Builds are copied.
> >
> > - Last week of October: release is announced.
>
> Ok, by this you mean like a few days AFTER Oct. 25th so we can test
> the downloads from the web site? I know we've had a few bumps with
> this in the past.
>
> >
> > There is some flexibility in both directions (if we are able to
> > upload test builds already tomorrow, why not? and conversely if we
> > need an extra Release Candidate, let it be); but it is clear that if
> > you have some time to spare for the project, it's better to allocate
> > it in October.
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Andrea.
> >
>
> All in all, things are going pretty well and I think you are a great
> Release Manager!
>
> --
> 
> MzK
>
> “The journey of a thousand miles begins
>  with a single step.”
>   --Lao Tzu
>
>
>
> 

Re: NeoShine: ribbon introduction

[donaldupre .]

Please no ribbon.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:36 PM, FR web forum  wrote:

> Hello list,
>
> Distributed with NeoKylin in China, NeoShine introduce a ribbon:
> http://oooforum.free.fr/images/neokylin_writer.png
> http://oooforum.free.fr/images/neokylin_calc.png
>
> I don't speak chinese but maybe these developers could be contacted.
> This enhancement could be back-ported in AOO?
>
> Website: http://cs2c.com.cn/
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Apache replacement

[donaldupre .]

Please allow me to clarify. According to your suggestion, the contributors
will be managed by Apache. The decision making will stay with Apache. But
apache proved to fail in those aspects...
About creating a derivative product, after reading so many comments and
opinions online suggesting a merge of OO and LO, introducing a third player
seems unreasonable.
I'm not affiliated with such a company and just raised an innocent question.
Regards,
Don

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Andrea Pescetti 
wrote:

> donaldupre . wrote:
>
>> What does it take to buy back OpenOffice from Apache?
>> I'm sure there are commercial entities that will be happy to develop it.
>>
>
> Those entities can ask their employees to contribute to OpenOffice, and
> help shape the project with their contributions. This addresses all items
> in your list (then some of them are debatable, but I'm not going to discuss
> them in detail).
>
> The license allows companies to create derivative products and choose
> distribution terms for those, as Damjan noted. The trademark policy
> regulates how a company can use the "OpenOffice" trademark in derivatives.
> All information you need is available on, or from, the
> http://openoffice.apache.org/ website.
>
> I'll just note that none of the actions you list is incompatible with
> Apache: the company contributes their employees' time to the project and
> profits by selling support, or additional services, or customized versions.
> This is very common and successful in other Apache projects. If you have
> contacts with interested companies, just ask them to come to this list and
> start contributing!
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

Re: Apache replacement

[donaldupre .]

There is the brand name "OpenOffice" to be bought.
The exact problems with Apache:
1. Lack of releases, should be 3-4 per year as minimum.
2. The tired and boring look and feel of the homepage, blog, facebook,
twitter.
3. Lack of innovation, the sidebar is not an example for innovation.
4. The lost contact with Linux distributions. all distributions ship
LibreOffice as default.
5. The limited documentation and user support in all forms.
6. The wrong emphasis on M$ formats compatibility, the reason OpenOffice
was invented was to rid the world from proprietary formats. If OpenOffice
fully supports these, what reason is there for anyone to use the open file
format?
Regards,
Don

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:

> Hi
>
> OpenOffice is under a very liberal license: anyone can fork it and continue
> developing it independently (eg. NeoOffice), there's nothing to be bought.
>
> What are your exact problems with the job Apache is doing?
>
> Regards
> Damjan
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 12:36 PM, donaldupre . 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> > What does it take to buy back OpenOffice from Apache?
> > I'm sure there are commercial entities that will be happy to develop it.
> > Apache isn't doing a great job...
> > Best regards,
> > Don
> > PS I don't want a merge with LibreOffice!
> >
>

Apache replacement

[donaldupre .]

Hi
What does it take to buy back OpenOffice from Apache?
I'm sure there are commercial entities that will be happy to develop it.
Apache isn't doing a great job...
Best regards,
Don
PS I don't want a merge with LibreOffice!