RE: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

2017-01-27 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Matthias Seidel [mailto:matthias.sei...@hamburg.de]
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 11:46
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?
>
> Am 27.01.2017 um 20:39 schrieb Marcus:
> > Am 27.01.2017 um 20:23 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> >> On 27.01.2017 20:17, Marcus wrote:
> >>> And it is crucial that the hashes and signature files *not* be
> >>> mirrored.  Having them only available at dist.apache.org is the
> secure
> >>> way to detect that the mirror-downloaded binary is authentic and
> >>> unaltered.
> >>>
> >>> right, we as OpenOffice project we should make sure that we refer
> only
> >>> to our own files and servers. So, I hope that there is no faulty
> link.
> >>> ;-)
> >> This decision would also mean we never release on Mac or Windows
> shop!
> >> I think this is a fatal decision.
[orcmid]

That is a misunderstanding of what is required.  To be in those stores, the 
code itself must be signed and/or uploaded by an authorized party.  Signing 
our Windows distributions would be wonderful and that would solve a branding 
and authentication problem also.

I assume there are similar arrangements possible the Mac Store.

> >
> > as long as we have no idea who should do this work, it's not really
> > relevant to think now about this. ;-)
> >
> > Marcus
>
> I would like to do a distribution of Apache OpenOffice to the Ubuntu
> Snap Store this year.
> Canonical has done this with LO, so it is no rocket science.
[orcmid]

If you are proposing to submit an authentic-from-AOO distribution, that will 
have to be done by the project, I would say.

There are other ways to distribute a build of your own, and you will need to 
honor branding requirements in how you use the OpenOffice name.

>
> So I would be definitely interested if that is possible/legal.
>
> 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


RE: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

2017-01-27 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 09:55
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?
> 
> Am 27.01.2017 um 18:50 schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie]
> >> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 07:59
> >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?
> >>
> >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:49:51 -0800
> >> "Dennis E. Hamilton" <orc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In thinking about this, I suggest that supported means (1)
> >> dist.apache.org authenticated binary distributions (as mirrored) are
> >> provided from source releases and (2) bugzilla provides for the
> platform
> >> as a named OS [type].
> >>>
> >>> I note that OS/2 and FreeBSD (and Solaris) qualify under (2) but not
> >> under (1).  I've seen other open-source projects link to sources of
> >> other builds without including them under their umbrella of official
> >> releases.  Not certain where bugs are supposed to be reported in
> those
> >> cases.
> >>>
> >>>  - Dennis
> >>>
> >>> PS: Whether or not there is a link to support.openoffice.org in a
> >> distributed binary is no help because counterfeit distributions do
> that
> >> too.
> >>
> >> But surely the distributed binary would have links to valid checksum
> >> files on the AOO distribution site, which counterfeit distributions
> >> would not have?
> > [orcmid]
> >
> > It depends how the counterfeit is distributed.  Most of them are with
> download pages and installers that do not provide any kind of links to
> hash values or digital signature files.  These target casual users and
> they give no evidence of hashes and signatures that users would check,
> even if they knew what to do with such links.
> >
> > The check-for-updates in the binary is also not always altered.
> >
> > Note that the binary does not have those links.  It is the download
> page that provides them.
> 
> ... where it IMHO belongs. When you have installed the software an it's
> running, then nobody cares about the question "Is the install package
> broken or not?". When you are afraid of getting maybe maleware then you
> (search for and) verify the checksums *before* you start any
> installation.
[orcmid] 

Yes, of course.

And it is crucial that the hashes and signature files *not* be mirrored.  
Having them only available at dist.apache.org is the secure way to detect that 
the mirror-downloaded binary is authentic and unaltered.

> 
> 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: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!

2017-01-27 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:joe...@j-m-schmidt.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 00:08
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com]
> 
> 
> > In fact Go-OO was started by Ximian in 2003, long before Novell bought
> > them, as a convenient build system for developers not working
> > within Sun.
> > The difficulty of getting the Sun team to accept patches, and the
> > complexity of the Sun build system, meant that most
> > developers external to
> > Sun used Go-OO as their repository.
> >
> > There were indeed strong words spoken by many people
> > (including me on Sun's
> > behalf) but for the most part Go-OO maintained its role as a
> > downstream
> > convenience for non-Sun contributors and played a positive
> > role developing
> > a developer community around the code. I think we would all
> > be well served
> > by dropping the decade-old hostility to it at this point.
> 
> For me, the one who is working against OpenOffice, or members of the
> OpenOffice community offended, an opponent of OpenOffice.
> 
> I will never forgive what Michael Meeks said against OpenOffice! No way
> 
> 
> Jörg
[orcmid] 

Let me confirm my understanding of what I know of the friction.

The Ximian/Novell developers could not contribute significant improvements 
without providing copyright transfer to Sun Microsystems.  And that would have 
permitted Sun to use the contribution in their own *closed-source* released and 
to license OpenOffice.org code to others for production of *closed-source*, 
non-FOSS releases.  For example, the IBM Symphony software.

And for this, you fault those (by then Novell) contributors being very unhappy 
with the arrangement and refusing to enter into such agreements.  Instead, they 
worked toward their own license-faithful fork of the LGPL code, ultimately the 
LibreOffice one?

While there was much heat, I don't think Sun was pure in this matter.  Not by 
any means.  Whatever the case, when Apache OpenOffice was founded, it was as an 
Apache Project, not any other kind.  The "original" that you speak of exists no 
longer.


 - Dennis

PS: It is an interesting irony that Sun (and then Oracle) having secured those 
rights is what made it possible to contribute OpenOffice.org to Apache without 
requiring agreement of contributors.  This allowed rebasing of LibreOffice for 
the same reason for MPL-licensed distributions based on the Apache-licensed 
source.  


> 
> 
> -
> 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: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

2017-01-27 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie]
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 07:59
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?
> 
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:49:51 -0800
> "Dennis E. Hamilton" <orc...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> > In thinking about this, I suggest that supported means (1)
> dist.apache.org authenticated binary distributions (as mirrored) are
> provided from source releases and (2) bugzilla provides for the platform
> as a named OS [type].
> >
> > I note that OS/2 and FreeBSD (and Solaris) qualify under (2) but not
> under (1).  I've seen other open-source projects link to sources of
> other builds without including them under their umbrella of official
> releases.  Not certain where bugs are supposed to be reported in those
> cases.
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
> > PS: Whether or not there is a link to support.openoffice.org in a
> distributed binary is no help because counterfeit distributions do that
> too.
> 
> But surely the distributed binary would have links to valid checksum
> files on the AOO distribution site, which counterfeit distributions
> would not have?
[orcmid] 

It depends how the counterfeit is distributed.  Most of them are with download 
pages and installers that do not provide any kind of links to hash values or 
digital signature files.  These target casual users and they give no evidence 
of hashes and signatures that users would check, even if they knew what to do 
with such links.

The check-for-updates in the binary is also not always altered.

Note that the binary does not have those links.  It is the download page that 
provides them.  


[ ... ]



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



RE: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?

2017-01-27 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
In thinking about this, I suggest that supported means (1) dist.apache.org 
authenticated binary distributions (as mirrored) are provided from source 
releases and (2) bugzilla provides for the platform as a named OS [type].

I note that OS/2 and FreeBSD (and Solaris) qualify under (2) but not under (1). 
 I've seen other open-source projects link to sources of other builds without 
including them under their umbrella of official releases.  Not certain where 
bugs are supposed to be reported in those cases.

 - Dennis

PS: Whether or not there is a link to support.openoffice.org in a distributed 
binary is no help because counterfeit distributions do that too. 

> -Original Message-
> From: toki [mailto:toki.kant...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 03:46
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [lazy consensus] FreeBSD as a new supported platform?
> 
> On 01/27/2017 07:41 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> 
> > I don't think we need complex categories here (especially because with
> > them a maintenance burden would come). In that source code README,
> > "supported" probably means "a platform for which we strive at
> producing
> > buildable source code".
> 
> If AOo were the typical Apache Software Foundation project, then that
> would be both reasonable, expected, and understandable by those who
> utilize the software.
> 
> But AOo is atypical of ASF projects, in that it is consumer oriented. As
> such, the user base neither knows, nor expects that "supported" even
> remotely implies "can be built from source".
> 
> I'd propose the README state:
> «
> Can be built from source code:
> * BSD;
> * Windows 10;
> * Windows 9x;
> * Mac OS X;
> * Linux;
> * etc;
> 
> Binaries are available for:
> * Linux (Debian: 64 bit);
> * Linux (RPM: 64 bit);
> * Windows (64 bit);
> * Mac OS X;
> * etc;
> »
> 
> jonathon
> 
> -
> 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: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!

2017-01-22 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
I am puzzled a little bit about the idea of "loyalty to the original" 
OpenOffice.

 1. The original OpenOffice.org was operated by a proprietary company, although 
the code was made available as open-source.  But ownership was held by Sun 
Microsystems for their proprietary purposes.  There was great value to 
OpenOffice.org, but not so much because it was open-source.  I think key 
benefits were support for ODF format, multiple-platform support, and degree of 
support for Microsoft formats.  There was no open-source governance in this 
arrangement.

 When LibreOffice forked that code, as the license allowed, some were 
unhappy in any case.

 2. When Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems, OpenOffice.org became their property 
in the same manner as at Sun.

 3. When Oracle concluded that continuation of OpenOffice.org was not in their 
interests, they chose to grant the ASF a license to use the code base and to 
provide it under a license of the ASF's choosing (always Apache License of 
course).  This is how Apache OpenOffice arose.  AOO became Apache Project after 
being in Apache Incubator.  People interested in supporting OpenOffice.org 
signed-up to contribute to the incubator and some formed the original Project 
Management Committee for AOO.  AOO has always been an Apache Project.

What "original OpenOffice" is thought of here?

 - Dennis



> -Original Message-
> From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:joe...@j-m-schmidt.de]
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 13:17
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
> 
> > -----Original Message-
> > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> 
> > Apache Projects all produce software free to the public.
> > Nothing more.
> 
> Is a office-programming-projekt under Apache Licence not a free project?
> 
> > Coming into the Incubator means operating
> > under the Incubator PMC with an existing *software* project
> > that can stand on its feet better as part of Apache Community.
> 
> yes, clear
> 
> > I think it is appropriate to find the simplest thing that can
> > possibly work.
> >
> > I recommend following Raphael's recommendation.
> 
> Sorry, but my interest is the original (= Openoffice) and no third party
> project.
> 
> I do not think the ASF would allow a crowd funding campaign for AOO 
> and a crowd funding campaign war Raphaels suggestion.
> 
> > If at least
> > that can work, then one has a foundation for something.
> 
> Yes, for a third party project ... for that I have no interest.
> 
> 
> 
> My summary is:
> I am absolutely incomprehensible why in an Apache project always to
> point to the way out of a third party project, instead of thinking about
> developing own rules further.
> 
> If we continue to do so, we will weaken the "OpenOffice" brand, although
> we should strengthen this brand.
> 
> 
> 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: If the list of PMC members up to date?

2017-01-22 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
If you want to communicate to the full PMC, send a message to private@ oo.a.o.  
Do not cross-post.  But communicating here on dev@ oo.a.o is also fine.  For 
discussions about broader ASF matters, subscribe to d...@community.apache.org

For more details of the PMC membership, see .  That 
is current as of this date.

This list may also be useful to you, 
.  Not all are 
current. 

 - Dennis 

> -Original Message-
> From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:joe...@j-m-schmidt.de]
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 02:58
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: If the list of PMC members up to date?
> 
> Hello,
> 
> If the list of PMC members up to date?
[orcmid] 

Yes.  It is produced automatically and will always be current.

> 
> see:
> http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#openoffice-pmc
> 
> 
> 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: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!

2017-01-21 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:joe...@j-m-schmidt.de]
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 03:48
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
> 
> 
> > From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
> 
> > Go ahead, but you are missing my point. Managing money like
> > you propose is not something Apache Members want to do.
> 
> Ok, clear.
> 
> I myself will continue to try to convince, so this opinion changes.
> 
> > Having a good working relationship with a third party is
> > something the ASF does all the time.
> 
> OK, but: I have no great interest in a third party, I want to help
> improve the original (=OpenOffice).
> 
> 
> But a question:
> Is it right that the ASF would _absolutely not accept_ an incubator
> project which is the goal of running crowfunding to pay developers to
> develop OpenOffice? I mean an incubator project, which might be called
> "Apache Developers for OpenOffice".
[orcmid] 

Apache Projects all produce software free to the public.  Nothing more.  Coming 
into the Incubator means operating under the Incubator PMC with an existing 
*software* project that can stand on its feet better as part of Apache 
Community.

I think it is appropriate to find the simplest thing that can possibly work.

I recommend following Raphael's recommendation.  If at least that can work, 
then one has a foundation for something.


> 
> Please note: This is not a concrete plan, but I would like a response if
> this way is completely excluded.
> 
> 
> 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: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!

2017-01-20 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
Dave Fisher has posted a valuable comment while I was writing this.  I 
completely support his views on this topic.

In addition, it seems to me that you propose a change in how the ASF itself 
works.

This is not the place to do that.

I suggest you take such discussion to the d...@community.apache.org mailing 
list.

In addition, even though there is a complaint about it such thing, this 
proposal is also a case of wanting someone [else] to do something.  That will 
never get anywhere here.  

Any collection of funds for targeted purposes and then commitments to 
delivering on those targets is *not* going to happen here.  That is a business 
activity, whether or not there is profit.  Members of the ASF board have 
already stated while that will not be done.

More in-line.

Again, I do not speak for the ASF or the AOO PMC.  I do notice that, although 
members of the PMC have also participated in this list discussion, I see no 
consideration on the part of the PMC itself.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:legi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 16:16
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
> 
> Hmm, the discussion moves in a wrong direction, with wrong assumptions.
> I am against a status quo solution. For me status quo directly transfers
> to nothing happens.
> 
> I am not talking of creating one Investor that provides Money. I aim at
> mobilizing as much as possible Open Office users has as Investors.
> 
> What I propose is a open crowd infrastructure. I do not believe Apache
> is capable of this, today. I do believe this is a near future, game
> changing model in general.
> 
> 
> For me the model should respect:
> 
> # Fundraising itself is neutral (i.e. funds are not raised for
> developers but for tasks / actions)
> 
> # nonprofit (Funds are not ment to provide any profit to the
> organisation itself and are bound by activity. investor decided on.)
[orcmid] 

The ASF is not *just* a non-profit organization.  It is a *charity*.  As part 
of being a charity, there is no "investor," only contributors, and contributors 
might be able to target contributions to some area, there will not be 
delivering activities chosen by investors.  It is unimaginable.  You have to 
find a means that does not involve the ASF or any ASF project in such an 
arrangement.

> 
> # Openess of the Infra (other Apache Project have acces to the same
> infra if they whish.)
[orcmid] 

Now you are proposing a different support and arrangement of Apache 
Infrastructure.  That is too ill-defined and would not be the prerogative of a 
PMC anyhow.  
> 
> # Openess in the community ( the funds on a task is open to all
> commiters if they manage to satisfy the requirement for a payout.)
[orcmid] 

Again, this is not going to happen.  It is a form of commerce and the ASF 
considers this to be completely incompatible with its charter and mission in 
everything I can find.
> 
> 
> This is just a rough outline, so you understand the direction (vision) I
> am thinking. Also please note that a lot question have to be answered.
> This is maybe 1% of a business plan.
> 
> I try to make a graph on the weekend. However I am not sure if I manage
> this on the weekend. (Thats why I have asked Raphael to give his
> vision).
> 
> 
> I do not see any reason why this cannot be done by Apache itseslf. Also
> One or more 3rd Party supplier can provide the Infra in full or in
> parts. For me this question is an issue we need to deal with at a later
> stage. And I stress this point: It needs to happen in sync with Apache.
> A crowd funding community is a dragon. And as Dragons are, they can be
> difficult in times. You do well to be prepared.
> 
> I hope all are at least courious and support this with their hopes and
> fears. It would be so powerfull if we can make this work.
[orcmid] 

The *only* way to embark on this is to see how to create an external entity 
that arranges contributions to ASF Projects.

You should find a way to do that.  You must find people willing to contribute 
much effort.  And people providing funds must have confidence in dealing with 
that entity.  Changing the charter of the ASF is the wrong way around.

If no one steps forward, then that shows this opportunity is not a constructive 
one.

In the past, some people offered to make small donations (smaller that $50 
USD).  That is not effective.

Another time, crowd funding and creation of a Kickstarter was discussed.  No 
one did that.

And last year, a conversation about an organization that could fund work was 
introduced.  No action occurred.

This conversation has continued over one week, and there are no actions.

Perhaps the details that Peter Kovacs will produce something that others can 
work on.  

I assure you, the way ahead is not by expecting the ASF to somehow do the work. 
 It is contributors to ASF Projects that do work.  All volunteers.  
*Volunteers* 

RE: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!

2017-01-19 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
I have comments in-line.

Also, let us speak of chicken and egg.

I observe that the Board and the Offices of ASF do not wish to deal with 
hypothetical cases.  Exceptions must be specific and actionable.  Also, 
exceptions do not create precedents.  If one project sees something they want 
as exception for them, they must create specific exception of their own.  (AOO 
has exception for bundling some writing tools in binaries only, not in source 
code, because licenses are incompatible.  It is very specific and not a 
precedent for other projects. When details of another exception are worked out, 
it is often revealed that the cases are not the same. The ASF avoids common 
risk of others seeing more "precedent" for their case than there actually is.)

It seems to me that if there is a request for some sort of external 
relationship(s), the external parties must already exist and be prepared to 
provide detailed agreement on how it will partner with AOO project in a way 
that preserves the principles and purpose of the ASF in how AOO participates in 
the arrangement.  This is not hard.  

I do not think making exceptions about hypothetical arrangements and then 
seeking external parties will work.

That is why it may be better for external party to be created first, operating 
as good downstream citizen, before requiring anything of the AOO PMC and ASF 
Board.  Ideally, no significant attention will be required.  The only thing 
external entity cannot do, and PMC would have to intervene, is make use of 
Apache trademarks in other than allowed ways.  Since it is not proposed that 
the external entity release any software product, this should be agreeable.

Also, the external party should not promise others that requested features will 
be incorporated in AOO in the manner they desire.  They will never have the 
authority to control AOO project actions, even though by mutual work, there may 
often be good alignment.

Only my thoughts, not thoughts from any PMC or Board discussion.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:legi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 23:08
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
> 
> Star Citizen proofed that a community can follow developers intend and
> raise the money needed.
> Even if we can not use the business model, we can learn something from
> their communication model they have developed.
> 
> Also what becomes clear to me is that we can not operate with a single
> entity. If I consider that we need to position us global right from the
> start, this is not so bad.
> 
> Maybe it would be better if we lay out a white paper on some model. Then
> we talk about this. We can then check for concerns. Note them down and
> find a solution for it.
> @Raphael do you like to write your idea in a document? I think we have a
> similar idea. Maybe I can put my idea as variation suggestion next to it
> afterwards.
[orcmid] 


Raphael raised his questions on d...@community.apache.org.  The responses are 
informative.

> Then we can see if we can refine the document.
> I think we need to focus on reaching a goal somehow, this discussion
> dissolves somewhat because we focus to much on the ASF and bugs. Then on
> goals concepts and stuff.
> 
> When we have a clear view, we can reach out to the ASF and hear their
> concerns, update the concept based on their feedback. I assume this way
> we will find a solution that works for everybody.
[orcmid] 

If you do not understand the concerns of the ASF and that AOO is ASF project, 
you may waste your time.  It works best to operate in models of external 
support that have worked well.

Please consider this document now in draft, meant to be aligned with detailed 
documents it refers to:
<http://www.apache.org/dev/project-requirements>.

I recommend that all developers interested in this discussion also subscribe to 
d...@communit.apache.org where good discussion can be held.

Also, it is the PMC that must communicate with ASF Board.  The PMC is 
responsible for the care of the project in terms of satisfying and preserving 
ASF spirit for projects.

Discussion and creation on dev@ is fine.  But PMC must as a body agree to some 
proposal if it is so exceptional that Board approval is required.
> 
> In Germany it is said that to lay out a business model takes 8 -16
> month. So IMHO we have time, does not need to be perfect.
> 
> All the best
> Peter
> 
> Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org <mailto:orc...@apache.org> >
> schrieb am Mi., 18. Jan. 2017, 17:36:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   > -Original Message-
>   > From: Raphael Bircher [mailto:rbircherapa...@gmail.com
> <mailto:rbircherapa...@gmail.com> ]
>   > Sent: Tuesday

RE: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!

2017-01-18 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Raphael Bircher [mailto:rbircherapa...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 21:36
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
> 
> Am .01.2017, 05:31 Uhr, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org>:
> 
[ ... ]
> 
> I personaly don't believe in that model for Apache OpenOffice. There is
> no
> need for a customized version of Apache OpenOffice. And the people who
> fork, do it normaly to have there own product. They don't want to
> upstream. But Yes, it is one model, who exist within ASF. Not that I'm
> completely against this way... If someone finds a way, to generate money
> to contribute back, it would be nice. But I don't think it's the right
> way.
> 
> I'm more with the payed feature model
[orcmid] 

That was also discussed - creation of an external organization that would 
arrange paid features and contribute to Apache OpenOffice.  That must be 
external to ASF.  And either (1) there are AOO committers who participate in 
both or (2) AOO committer and PMC must accept the changes and the AOO project 
incorporates features in AOO releases.

So the feature organization would need to be able to do everything but make 
distributions to provide tested, quality features.  Or have AOO committers in 
the feature organization to work on feature branches of AOO SVN.

In all cases, there must be *no* payment process or fund-raising process that 
involves the ASF.  That is key requirement #1.  I see that Bertrand Delacretaz 
has provided a good answer about this on d...@community.apache.org.  

AND

The greatest barrier of all is key requirement #2: finding already-capable 
OpenOffice developers who have the capacity and willingness to do such work.  
The fees that an OpenOffice features organization would pay must be enough. 
Someone with the required at-hand skills can already earn $100,000 per year and 
more (in US), with all benefits available where they work.  I do not know 
comparable salaries in EU.  I believe it is still expensive in terms of how 
much money feature-organization must raise.  Also, providing contract 
agreements for performance of feature delivery is also complicated.

There is a great misunderstanding in the user community of how much feature 
development costs using developers with professional, at-hand skills.

 - Dennis

> 
> >
> > We can dig up that conversation if you like.
> I would be interested, where the discussion ends ;-)
> 
> Regards Raphael
> --
> Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch
> 
> -
> 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: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!

2017-01-17 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:legi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 19:39
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Community building: give our User a chance to contribute!
> 
> If a member can not collect for the hole project, I think the ASF should
> do. That would be the simplest solution.
> Can we ask the ASF what they think? Are they against a simple OpenOffice
> development specific fund?
> After all this is a end user product, not some IT component.
[orcmid] 

It is possible that targeted donations might have an arrangement.  They would 
not be for small sums, I think.
It would be up to the AOO Project Management Committee to make such requests.

However, there is a different aspect here.  The ASF does not pay developers.  
None.  Not any.  Of course, contributors might make their contributions as part 
of their employment, but it is not paid by the ASF.

So targeted donations would pay for other things needed by the project that are 
beyond what ASF normally provides.

Both of these factors are related to the non-profit status of the ASF and how 
it defines its mission and what its policies are for achieving that mission.

We talked through much of this probably one year ago.  

Other projects do have downstream producers who create distributions or forks 
and may be commercial.  But they contribute back upstream, and may have people 
who provide those contributions and work with the project on fixes, etc.

We can dig up that conversation if you like.  

 - Dennis

> 
> Maybe we think and speculate to much, and should talk with the ASF
> first,
> asking them for help.
> 
> After all the donation text does not sound like ASF is against something
> like this.
> And they have seen what it means if no core team is availabe.
> 
> I guess they are open for ideas.
> 
> Jörg Schmidt  schrieb am Di., 17. Jan. 2017,
> 11:44:
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> > > From: Raphael Bircher [mailto:rbircherapa...@gmail.com]
> >
> >
> > > > Team OpenOffice was such a project. The participants were mainly
> > > > experienced OpenOffice developers from SUN Microsystems.
> > > I think, the real problem there was this text
> > > http://www.opensourceforbusiness.info/openoffice-org-droht-das-aus/
> >
> > Yes you are absolutely right.
> >
> > But I do not see any great difference to my links.
> >
> >
> > > The only restriction the ASF have is, that you can not
> > > collect money in
> > > the name of a project as a third party.
> >
> > This is not the whole truth. Also as an Apache member, I can not
> collect
> > donations
> > for Apache OpenOffice and this is a very real problem, because almost
> > nobody of
> > the OO used for Apache generally donate, for AOO concretely many would
> > donate.
> >
> > > And Apache itself
> > > does not found
> > > defelopment.
> >
> > And that's imho bad. Where would the problem be if the users
> voluntarily
> > donated
> > and OO with these donations further developed?
> >
> > I can not see a reasonable reason why I, as a project member, are
> forced
> > to act
> > separately when it comes to donations instead of within the project
> itself.
> > It would be better for me to act within the project, because any
> activity
> > outside
> > weakens, indirectly, the project as such.
> >
> > > But you can collect money for Features or major bugfixes as a
> > > third party.
> >
> > Yes we can. But I believe that this is a fragmentation of the forces
> and
> > would
> > rather be done within the project.
> >
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Jörg
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> > --
> 
> Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre
> Antwort
> wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
> werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
> Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
> kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
> Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu
> Google
> konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
> wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
> verhandeln.


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



RE: Error on enum statement. Can sombody take a little time and explain the enum and the error?

2017-01-01 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:legi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 1, 2017 17:07
> To: dev 
> Subject: Error on enum statement. Can sombody take a little time and
> explain the enum and the error?
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> 
> I tried to compile the source again. since I had again missing
> definition on trunc I wanted to know if I can build at least the 4.1.3
> release. I checked out the branch and started all over.
> 
> And I ran into following Issue:
> 
> ../inc/basebmp/packedpixeliterator.hxx:80:10: error: enumerator value
> for 'bit_mask' is not an integer constant
> 
> The corresponding code is:
> 
>enum {
>  /** The number of pixel within a single value_type value
>   */
> num_intraword_positions=sizeof(value_type)*8/bits_per_pixel,
>  /** Bit mask for one pixel (least significant bits)
>   */
>  bit_mask=~(~0 << bits_per_pixel)
[orcmid] 


Try a couple of things:

 1. Put spaces in the "=~" to be something like " = ~" in the definition of 
bit_mask.

 2. If that makes no difference, try 

  bit_mask = ~ ((value_type)(~0 << bits_per_pixel))

and if that doesn't work, see if 

  bit_mask = ~ ((int)(~0 << bits_per_pixel))

or even

  bit_mask = (int) (~(~0 << bits_per_pixel))

get the job done.

It seems strange for an enum being used this way.  It is a clumsy way to define 
two numeric constants that are not involved in an enumeration at all.

>  };
> 
> 
> An explanation would be great. I found [1] on the net, but I am realy
> unsure if this is the same. And I do not understand the code in
> packedpixeliterator at all.
> 
> All the best and thanks for your time.
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> [1]
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18090541/how-to-set-the-value-of-an-
> enumeration-constant-outside-the-range-of-int#18090940
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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: SSDLC Compliance - OpenOffice

2016-12-20 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
Comments in-line.

> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:legi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 01:41
> To: dev ; gan.kokleong.adr...@stee.stengg.com
> Subject: Re: SSDLC Compliance - OpenOffice
> 
> As usual I forgot to add people probably not subscribed to the list.
> 
> Peter Kovacs  schrieb am Di., 20. Dez. 2016, 10:39:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > Can you elaborate on this?
> > Do you simply want to know or do you need this as an official
> statement?
> > I think you are Query the wrong Project if you need an official
> response.
> > Open Office 3.3.1 and older were maintained by Oracle. I am not sure
> if
> > Apache Foundation has the right to speak for this time. As libre
> office we
> > are a successor to Oracle OpenOffice Project.
> >
> > This is of course my personal opinion. I am not sure if Apache
> Foundation
> > has the same opinion like me on this.
> >
> > All the best
> > Peter
> >
> > GAN Kok Leong, Adrian  schrieb am
> > Di., 20. Dez. 2016, 08:50:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to find out whether OpenOffice version 3.3 and 3.3.1 is
> > developed and comply with Secure Software Development Life Cycle?
[orcmid] 

I am confident that there were no Capability Maturity Model or related 
assurance processes applied when OpenOffice.org was developed under the 
umbrella of Sun Microsystems and then Oracle Corporation.

At Apache OpenOffice, there is no such process, including for the Secure 
Software Development Life Cycle, if you are referring to 
.

There is no means for assessment of Trusted CMM for Apache OpenOffice, since 
there is no process management in the sense involved in the Capability Maturity 
Model.  Lacking process management, there is also no accountability concerning 
processes in the sense considered in the CMM.  Those with a sense of humor 
would consider this to be somewhere less than CMM Level 1.

It is not clear to me how open-source governance, providing software free to 
the public without warranty and entirely driven by a meritocracy of unpaid 
volunteers who choose what and how they work on something, would accomplish 
this.  In any case, it is not a consideration at Apache OpenOffice.  I cannot 
recall ever seeing anything recognizable as the activities identified at 
.

I cannot speak for LibreOffice.  There might be more management structure than 
for Apache projects.  I believe there is a core engineering team.  Whether 
there is much attention to SSDLC processes and the necessary accountability and 
concrete assessment is something that needs to be discussed with the 
LibreOffice team.  Speculations here on dev@ oo.a.o are useless.  Most of the 
claims I see about dependability or lack-thereof are anecdotal and based on 
sparse evidence.  

Although the Microsoft Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) is a security 
assurance process that might be adaptable, I am not aware of any effort to 
investigate that for open-source projects such as OpenOffice and my suspicion 
is that there is no such interest (more likely, that there be hostility) 
despite the good reputation of that process, 
.  I have never seen threat 
modeling performed at Apache OpenOffice, for example.

Thanks for asking.  It is a great question.

 - Dennis


> >
> > Regards
> > Adrian Gan
> >
> >
> > [This e-mail is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the
> > intended recipient, please kindly notify us immediately and delete the
> > message
> > from your system; please do not copy or use it for any purpose, nor
> > disclose
> > its contents to any other person. Thank you.]
> > ---ST Electronics Group---
> >
> > --
> >
> > Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre
> Antwort
> > wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen
> zwecks
> > werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
> > Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
> > kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
> > Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu
> Google
> > konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies
> nicht
> > wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
> > verhandeln.
> >
> --
> 
> Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre
> Antwort
> wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
> werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
> Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
> kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
> Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu
> 

RE: Actual process to make changes on the website

2016-11-27 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
Alternatively,

Log onto  with your Apache ID and password.  

Then click the "Publish ooo-site site" link.

There is no need for the Perl script and this should work in any current 
browser.  (I just confirmed it with IE 11.)

 - Dennis


> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 07:33
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Actual process to make changes on the website
> 
> Raphael Bircher wrote:
> > Ok, just got it,you need publish.pl and a perl intepreter on windows
> ;-)
> 
> Yes, that's it! Once it's set up, just run
> $ publish.pl ooo-site 
> 
> 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: Request to join back the PMC

2016-11-27 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
[BCC PMC]

This is a personnel matter and Raphael's request should be made to and 
discussed at priv...@openoffice.apache.org.  

There are means for reinstating former PMC members and that is to be taken up 
there.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:joe...@j-m-schmidt.de]
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 06:14
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Request to join back the PMC
> 
> Hello,
> 
> > From: Raphael Bircher [mailto:rbircherapa...@gmail.com]
> 
> > In february 2015 I stepped back from the OpenOffice PMC. I
> > stepped backi
> > because I have no more time to work on the project. Now I
> > want to come
> > back. Let me know, if this is ok or not.
> 
> It's totally right now for me.
> 
> 
> but ...
> 
> @raphael:
> I do not really understand your approach. Normally(*) you are either PMC
> member or you are not, imho there is no dormant membership. But the PMC
> should decide.
> 
> [(*)
> I think there is a difference between a membership in the project and
> the PMC and a rescission from this membership - if you are a member you
> do _not_ have to work _every minute_, but if you are not a member
> anymore, then you are no longer a member.
> If you find it fair to officially leave the project, then you can not
> come back at any time and seamlessly to your former status. As I said,
> for me it is currently OK, but this is an exception and not an
> automatism.]
> 
> @all:
> At the moment the concrete work on new versions of AOO is more important
> than questions concerning the PMC, but I think next year (maybe after
> the summer holidays) its time would be thinking about the occupation of
> the PMC.
> I think there are currently some members who are no longer active in the
> project, but who are still in the PMC, and that should be changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 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: Bugzilla and Twitter

2016-11-11 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 12:40
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: Dennis E. Hamilton (Apache) <orc...@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Bugzilla and Twitter
> 
> Am 11/10/2016 04:56 PM, schrieb FR web forum:
> > Twitter seems to be disconnected with Bugzilla
> > https://twitter.com/aoobugs don't tweet any issues since 10-31-2016
> 
> @Dennis:
> As you are managing the Twitter account, can you help here? Has any
> service stopped and needs to be restarted/reconfigured?
[orcmid] 

I am managing the @ApacheOO account.  This has nothing to do with the @aoobugs 
account.

Since the feed is generated from Bugzilla, someone might need to look there.  
Wasn't Mark Thomas providing information about the recent update?

I just tweeted directly to @aoobugs and I don't see it in the @aoobugs stream 
(so far).  We can't rule out that there is (also) an account problem.  Without 
the password and email associated with the account, I'm not certain what can be 
done.  If twitter changed any of their APIs for programmatic creation of 
tweets, we have no idea who was notified, if any, and who can do anything about 
it.  I also don't know if notices to the account holder bounced at twitter and 
led twitter to do something.  

I notice that @aoobugs only has 16 followers [;<), although one, @apacheoobr, 
has 85 followers (and is a probably a trademark problem [;<).  If there is no 
way to gain control of this situation it may be better to recommend 
subscriptions to issues@oo.a.o, even though that is much busier.

I have exhausted any ideas I have about this [;<).

 - Dennis




> 
> Thanks
> 
> 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



Recap of Board/Reports Actions on OpenOffice

2016-11-05 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
[BCC PMC]

I just encountered this accidentally [;<):

.

This makes it unnecessary to invest any further maintenance at 

.

I will add a note, there, linking to the whimsy extract.

 - Dennis






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



RE: Download Stats

2016-10-17 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
I'm not certain what the point of the aggregate count is, apart from it being 
a larger number.  While pride is taken in it, it is not clear how meaningful 
it is.

The current rate of downloads averages out to around 3 million per month. 
That was true for 4.1.1 and for 4.1.2.  It is likely that 4.1.3 will achieve a 
comparable take-up.

But of course, this does not tell you how many users.  In particular, we don't 
know what downloads are for new users and what downloads are for updates 
(including re-downloading) by existing users.

Here's a recent summary: 

Although US destinations account for 16% of downloads, about 40% of all 
downloads are of an English localization.

 - Dennis




> -Original Message-
> From: Matthias Seidel [mailto:matthias.sei...@hamburg.de]
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 08:30
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Download Stats
>
> Answering myself... ;-)
>
> The python-script on that page should be updated to include version
> 4.1.3. And I think it must be run manually for updated data.
>
> The problem with the graphs is that both are defined with a height of
> 150px.
> That's OK for the daily downloads, but at 160.000.000 total downloads
> the graph is cut off in a flat line.
> (We now must be at about 200.000.000 total downloads)
>
> regards, Matthias
>
> (P.S.: Downloads on scourceforge are close to half a million for 4.1.3)
>
>
> Am 16.10.2016 um 23:34 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> > Looking at the download counter on scourceforge :-), am I the only one
> > interested in an updated chart on:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/stats/downloads.html ?
> >
> > BTW, I thing the graphic cuts off at 160.000.000...
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Matthias
> >
> >
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature


RE: Need urgent Confluence help

2016-10-11 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
I don't have the karma either.

I just deleted the content, declared it to be an orphan page and clobbered the 
Title.  (Titles are mandatory).

> -Original Message-
> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 09:46
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Need urgent Confluence help
> 
> On 10/11/2016 9:23 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> > I need to delete a page, and do not have the karma to do it.
> >
> > I either need an addition to my confluence permissions, or for someone
> > who can do so to delete
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Alternative+AOO+4.1
> .3+Release+Notes
> 
> I have mitigated the problem by moving the page that should be deleted
> to under the test page. I would still like to be able to get rid of it
> completely.
> 
> -
> 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: {Dicuss] [Vote] Summary

2016-10-06 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
+1

Great analysis and working things out: pats, arielch, marcus.

> -Original Message-
> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 06:00
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: {Dicuss] [Vote] Summary
> 
> This thread has morphed a bit, and I think a summary may be useful at
> this time.
> 
> It started with Keith pointing out, correctly, that I was taking a short
> cut by starting the vote before all the relevant bugs had been marked
> "Fixed", although after I was sure they were all fixed in reality. That
> aspect was quickly resolved by Ariel updating the bugs in question. All
> 4.1.3 release blocker bugs are now marked as fixed.
> 
> It then shifted into a discussion of what should be in the release
> notes. There are three classes of Bugzilla issues involved:
> 
> 1. Fixes affecting the behavior of binaries. Listing these in the
> release notes is non-controversial.
> 
> 2. Administrative changes, changing the release number in various
> places.
> 
> 3. Fixes to the build systems. Because of the year time lapse since
> 4.1.2, there was an accumulation of issues that affect building in
> various environments.
> 
> The question was how to handle the second and third classes. They are
> uninteresting, and in some cases incomprehensible, to the vast majority
> of AOO users. The plan is to only mention "interesting" bugs directly in
> the release notes, but include the URL for a Bugzilla query that shows
> all the fixes.
> 
> 
> -
> 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: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
I think the observation was that ODF was not designed with interoperability 
with Microsoft in mind.  In fact, that case was officially excluded, although 
the work on OpenFormula in ODF 1.2 was designed to accommodate Excel and had 
participation of Microsoft experts.

The folklore about all of this does not account for improvements that have 
happened over time.

For example, it is no longer the case that Office does not support what is 
called strict OOXML, after using transitional originally and also still 
supporting it (but not as the default output as far as I can tell).  That there 
were migration steps was certainly an important legacy consideration for that 
product.  Although not involving such a large user base, the same applied with 
regard to the Star Office formats supported as legacy in OpenOffice and 
ensuring that legacy prospect in the design of ODF too.  (The ODF project was 
originally named the OpenOffice project, with the change made at the last 
minute for ODF 1.0.)

It is a misunderstanding to assume that there is some "strict" ODF conformance 
requirement.  That is factually not the case, nor does anything in the 
specification require some clear conformance for interoperability.  

I daresay that *no* implementation supports the full features and details of 
ODF, and there is no requirement that *any* implementation do so.  In addition, 
there is extensive under-specification of some features (e.g., nothing about 
macro languages [;<), with many implementation-defined and 
implementation-specific holes.  

What worked for a time was using OpenOffice's support, whatever it is, as what 
others attempted to match in regard to supporting ODF in an interoperable (with 
OpenOffice) manner.  That is no longer a workable guide as OpenOffice and 
LibreOffice extensions and feature differences increase in support of the ODF 
format.  And OpenOffice does not participate in the work toward ODF 1.3 at 
OASIS, although that may not matter in the long run.  ODF may simply become 
whatever LibreOffice does, just proving that any open-format standard can 
become a silo.

The legacy Microsoft Office formats are documented and those documents are 
freely available and are used.  That extends to RTF as well. Meanwhile, there 
are many undocumented uses of ODF, including of binary formats inside ODF 
documents.

It really is a matter of "choose your poison."

 - Dennis

PS: The ODF specification is not tight enough for what many seem to 
automatically presume.  For a technical analysis of that, I have a 
free-to-download technical paper that walks through how it goes, with the 
failures of change-tracking as a case study: .  Click 
on the title "Tracked Changes" for the free PDF.  Sections 1-2 should make the 
situation clear enough.

> -Original Message-
> From: Hagar Delest [mailto:hagar.del...@laposte.net]
> Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 12:57
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re:  In regards to Open Office
> 
> Le 02/10/2016 à 19:29, Xen a écrit :
> > Jörg was only mentioning that the ODF format was also designed without
> compatibility in mind, and that it is an equal situation.
> 
> I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to give the
> users back the property of their own data. This was to give users an
> alternative to the proprietary formats like .doc, .xls, ...
> The problem was that legacy file formats (.doc, .xls, ...) could not
> allow intercompatibility between software. Hence the need of an open
> standard.
> 
> By design, there should not be any compatibility aspect in an open
> format : if the file format is fully documented, then each software
> should respect that format and then the compatibility with other
> applications will be achieved.
> 
> But [MS Office] OOXML is not what we could label a real open format.
> There are parts that still refer to proprietary bits. Therefore, the
> situation is not that equal. And for the strict OOXML flavor, MS Office
> doesn't use it as its default format, it was only a mean to get the
> OOXML approved by ISO I think (and we all remember the conditions in
> which it has been done).
> 
> Hagar
> 
> -
> 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: Which source files in release?

2016-10-02 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
I lost the thread somewhere, and I want to comment on a remark about who signs 
packages in the release candidates.

  I think there is a "requirement", or probably just an 
  assumption, that the source package be signed by the Release Manager, so 
  if you want to check the package and then replace the signature with 
  yours you can just delete the current .asc files and upload the new 
  ones. If not, I doubt anyone will complain.

I think the signature provided by the committer who constructs any uploaded 
packages should be retained.  It is a matter of signing as the work of the 
committer who did it.  I think the source package should definitely be signed 
by the RM, because the RM usually provides that much, but it doesn't have to 
be.  

After that, any committer whose public certificate is in the release folder 
KEYS file, including the RM, can verify the .asc signature(s) and also *add* 
their own once satisfied by whatever criteria they mean to signify.  

Adding signatures is a matter of creating another --detach-sign --armor 
signature and splicing all of it, including the BEGIN and END markers, onto the 
end of the existing one.  It should still verify and also report both (or more) 
signatures.  Just ensure that the markers are on lines by themselves.

I just added my signature, locally, to the current 

  Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.3_Win_x86_install_en-US.exe.asc 

file.  No problem.  The attachment, if it comes through, shows what that looks 
like.

 - Dennis
  


> -Original Message-
> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org]
> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2016 09:35
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Which source files in release?
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/1/2016 9:24 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> >> The idea is to start from a clean check-out, not configured, move the
> >> LICENSE, NOTICE, and README files, and delete what is not needed.
> "what
> >> is not needed" should be a relatively short list, including the .svn
> >> files and also ext_sources.
> >
> > While I would have gone for Bash too, the ant script in the end does
> the
> > same and it is quite easy to maintain.
> >
> > The trunk version already contains several improvements with respect
> to
> > the one we have in AOO413.
> >
> > I've tried to build a source package for 4.1.3 by applying the two
> > changes I applied to trunk earlier today and that are documented at
> > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126605
> > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127148
> > to a normal 4.1.3 build tree.
> >
> > The results are at
> > http://home.apache.org/~pescetti/openoffice-4.1.3-r1761381-src/
> > and comparison with an SVN export gives the expected results.
> >
> > Patricia: feel free to reuse these packages (you may want to remove my
> > signature and add yours in case, after you check them); I didn't
> upload
> > them to SVN to avoid confusion, but I can of course do so if you are
> > going to reuse these. Otherwise no problem at all if you prefer to
> > package/supply the sources differently.
> 
> For 4.1.3, I am in "Don't rock the boat" mode. Anything that gets us to
> release sooner is good. It looks as though you already have the packages
> we need, so please go ahead and SVN them.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Patricia
> 
> -
> 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: In regards to Open Office

2016-10-02 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
+1

Rory's point is all that matters.  The user wants to know how things will work 
*now* in choosing between different products.  Hypotheticals and speculations 
about format standards are not useful.  (I've worked on both OOXML and ODF 
specifications and I know from direct knowledge how baseless that debate is. I 
also run Office 365, Apache OpenOffice, and LibreOffice.  I will not offer a 
preference so don't ask.)

Neither Microsoft Office nor Apache OpenOffice provide a works-alike of the 
other and its preferred/native format.  Each uses the format of the other by 
(imperfect) conversions.  That will be apparent when Bill or anyone has them 
side-by-side and tests interchange with the documents that are important to him.

My recommendation to Bill Pate is that he go to the trouble of installing 
Apache OpenOffice and checking on what matters for his particular situation and 
the documents that are important to him.  He should not save back on top of his 
Office 365 documents, but save as new versions from OpenOffice until he is 
satisfied that any deviations are tolerable.

He also needs to know that if support for OOXML (.docx, .xlsx, .pptx) formats 
is important for reasons of interchange, that Apache OpenOffice does not save 
back in those formats and it won't in the foreseeable future.  Earlier comments 
suggest alternatives (e.g., going back to .doc, .xls, and .ppt formats or 
switching to .odt, .ods, and .odp) and Bill should satisfy himself whether any 
of that works in his situation.  It may also matter whether he requires 
Mobile/Tablet support and an alternative to desktop Outlook (if used in his 
Office 365 work), frequent security and feature updates, etc.

It doesn't matter what others think sucks.  It matters what will actually work 
for Bill.  The safest step for Bill is to try both while he can have them 
side-by-side and then satisfy himself.

 - Dennis


> -Original Message-
> From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie]
> Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 07:00
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: Xen 
> Subject: Re:  In regards to Open Office
> 
> 
> Top posting:
> 
> This thread is going off at half cock!
> 
> Hagar's implied point was that any change in editor is almost certain to
> cause some alteration (greater or lesser) in formatting.  Why this
> should be and whether the precise file format is responsible is hardly
> relevant.
> 
> Rory
> 
> 
> On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 15:43:56 +0200
> Xen  wrote:
> 
> > Jörg Schmidt schreef op 02-10-2016 14:05:
> >
> > > And let me say it absolutely clear:
> > > I've heard how MS has denigrated many years Linux, but I have also
> > > noticed that MS
> > > reality of ODF recognized.
> > > Only with better software, we can beat MS, not with stupid sayings.
> >
> > It is easier than ever today, I must say. Microsoft creates worse and
> > worse software by the day, for the most part. But for the most part
> > Linux is not improving either...
> >
> > > I believe in the competition for the better software, not I believe
> in
> > > the power
> > > of ideological talk.
> >
> > Indeed just saying some software is better won't make it better.
> >
> > Thank you for these sentiments. In the Linux world many things are
> make
> > believe. If you can get enough people to agree that a pear is orange,
> > other people will start believing it too.
> >
> > Some Linux advents and groups and products keep repeating "their great
> > community" and "their awesome software" verbatim every day. But saying
> > it is great doesn't necesarily make it great and I see the same on
> > television if I have stayed away from it for a while (it will be
> called
> > nationalism).
> >
> > Only honesty can really improve things. Anyway, sorry for this.
> Regards.
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Rory O'Farrell 
> 
> -
> 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: Windows XP confirmation of AOO 4.1.3 r1761381

2016-09-30 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
This time, before running the 2016-09-29 installer, I uninstalled the previous 
AOO 4.1.3-dev install in my Windows XP VM.

That installed fine.

It appears that the checking for installed VC++ redistributables is invisible 
on Windows XP, but visible on Windows 10 Anniversary edition.  On the XP 
system, I found both cases in Windows\WinSxS for VC90 redistributables.  (Their 
manifests and security catalogs, however, are dated 2011.)

Looking back at the Windows 10 Anniversary Edition that I also installed on, I 
can't find recently-added redistributables at all, so I must not know where to 
be looking.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 09:53
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Windows XP confirmation of AOO 4.1.3 r1761381
> 
> I successfully installed the 2016-09-23 AOO 4.1.3-dev (r1761381)
> Win_x86_en-US on Windows XP Professional Version 2002 Service Pack 3
> (running in a VirtualBox VM).
> 
> No VC++ 2008 redistributable installation occurred.
> 
> I have not checked anything else at this point.
> 
>  -- Dennis E. Hamilton
> orc...@apache.org
> dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430
> https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
> X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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: Windows 10 Anniversary confirmation of AOO 4.1.3 r1761381

2016-09-30 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
I ran the install of the 2016-09-29 AOO4.1.3-dev r1761381 (still) to see how 
the VC++ redistributables worked.

I saw the redistributables install again, apparently being newer as expected.

The main AOO install did not run because the same version was detected as 
already installed.

After uninstalling AOO4.1.3-dev and then again installing the 2016-09-29 
install, I saw the VC++ redistributables checks go by quickly, but apparently 
not with any time installing.  The AOO part of the installation proceeded 
successfully.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 09:35
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Windows 10 Anniversary confirmation of AOO 4.1.3 r1761381
> 
> I successfully installed the 2016-09-23 AOO-dev (r1761381) Win_x86_en-US
> on Windows 10 Anniversary Edition (Version 1607 build 14393.187).
> 
> There was apparently no VC++ 2008 redistributables already on the
> system, and the runtime installation was performed.
> 
> I have not checked anything else at this point.
> 
>  -- Dennis E. Hamilton
> orc...@apache.org
> dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430
> https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
> X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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



Windows XP confirmation of AOO 4.1.3 r1761381

2016-09-29 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
I successfully installed the 2016-09-23 AOO 4.1.3-dev (r1761381) Win_x86_en-US 
on Windows XP Professional Version 2002 Service Pack 3 (running in a VirtualBox 
VM).

No VC++ 2008 redistributable installation occurred.

I have not checked anything else at this point.

 -- Dennis E. Hamilton
orc...@apache.org
dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430
https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail



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



Windows 10 Anniversary confirmation of AOO 4.1.3 r1761381

2016-09-29 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
I successfully installed the 2016-09-23 AOO-dev (r1761381) Win_x86_en-US on 
Windows 10 Anniversary Edition (Version 1607 build 14393.187).

There was apparently no VC++ 2008 redistributables already on the system, and 
the runtime installation was performed.

I have not checked anything else at this point.

 -- Dennis E. Hamilton
orc...@apache.org
dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430
https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail



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



RE: Testing 4.1.3

2016-09-27 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
 has the developer builds 
that are being readied.  Note that these are only for developers, QA, and 
consideration as RC1.  They are not meant to be placed in general use as there 
is no 4.1.3 release at this time.

 - Dennis

 
> -Original Message-
> From: Hagar Delest [mailto:hagar.del...@laposte.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:16
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Testing 4.1.3
> 
> Sorry for the stupid question but is there a link to the builds???
> Not able to find any on the web site or even in the mail...
> Or should we wait for the RC (there used to be links on the website for
> the RCs).
> 
> Hagar
> 
> 
> Le 26/09/2016 à 22:51, Marcus a écrit :
> > Am 09/25/2016 08:33 PM, schrieb Marcus:
> >> Am 09/25/2016 04:33 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
> >>> I suggest that people start downloading and testing 4.1.3 as soon as
> >>> there are binaries they can run. I can't start the formal vote
> period
> >>> until we have a complete release candidate.
> >>
> >> thanks for the pointer, I'll wait for the Linux 64-bit and Windows
> builds.
> >
> > grrr, I was to fast with my offer as I'm not available until Thursday.
> I'll test the builds then if it's still early enough.
> >
> > Sorry
> >
> > 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


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



RE: Editing the release notes wiki

2016-09-26 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
You usually make a request on doc@ or here on dev@, giving the user name you 
have on the CWiki, and one of the administrators will give you the karma.  I 
know Keith was doing that for folks who wanted to work on documentation.

According to the record we have for such things, Andrea and Dave Fisher can 
also do it.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 20:07
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Editing the release notes wiki
> 
> 
> On 9/26/2016 8:01 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> > Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> >> I had foolishly assumed that editing the Wiki would be reasonably
> easy.
> >> It isn't.
> >>
> >> I need to add a child page to
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Releases, and
> don't
> >> see an "Add Page" link.
> > Patricia;
> >
> > I have added the child page for 4.1.3 based on the 4.1.2 page. It will
> > need to be edited to bring it up to date.
> >
> > Regards
> > Keith
> >
> 
> Thanks, but I don't seem to have editing privileges either, and need to
> create other pages, such as, most urgently, the release notes. How do
> you get child page creation and editing privileges?
> 
> -
> 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



Downloading dev/openoffice/4.1.3 Windows Binaries

2016-09-26 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
Developers who download the developer-binary .exe files for Windows may receive 
warnings that the programs have no frequency of being downloaded much and may 
be dangerous.  

This is a "reputation" warning by Internet Explorer, other browsers, and 
anti-malware software.  It is expected that these files have no meaningful 
reputation while in the developer-download state.  

It is appropriate to do three things:

 1. Ignore the warning.

 2. Then download the .asc, .md5, and .sha256 files and use them to verify the 
corresponding .exe that you download.

 3. After whatever testing you do with these, do not retain the files on your 
system if these do not become the release candidate that is approved for 
general distribution.  That's important.  Otherwise, any bugs you might detect 
later will not be against the official release and it is confusing because the 
filenames will not change.

 -- Dennis E. Hamilton
orc...@apache.org
dennis.hamil...@acm.org+1-206-779-9430
https://keybase.io/orcmid  PGP F96E 89FF D456 628A
X.509 certs used and requested for signed e-mail



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



Question: Naming the dev/openoffice/4.1.3 folders

2016-09-26 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
I've been puzzling about the folder names.  Let me test my understanding.

If all of the dev/openoffice/4.1.3/ files being uploaded become RC1, will it be 
by renaming the folder (e.g., from 4.1.3 to 4.1.3-rc1) without changing 
anything in the folders?  (The files have the name they will have if they 
become the release - no rc* in the file naming inside the release-candidate 
folder.)

That seems to be how folders were named with the rc number in the past.  When 
an rc* passes a release vote, that folder is moved to release/openoffice/4.1.3 
(without the -rc* suffix) and we are good to go.

Is that the plan?

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: arie...@apache.org [mailto:arie...@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 08:21
> To: comm...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r15666 -
> /dev/openoffice/4.1.3/binaries/he/Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.3_Win_x86_langpa
> ck_he.exe
> 
> Author: arielch
> Date: Mon Sep 26 15:20:44 2016
> New Revision: 15666
> 
> Log:
> Prepare 4.1.3 release
> 
> Added:
> 
> dev/openoffice/4.1.3/binaries/he/Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.3_Win_x86_langpac
> k_he.exe   (with props)
> 
> Added:
> dev/openoffice/4.1.3/binaries/he/Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.3_Win_x86_langpac
> k_he.exe
> 
> ==
> Binary file - no diff available.
> 
> Propchange:
> dev/openoffice/4.1.3/binaries/he/Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.3_Win_x86_langpac
> k_he.exe
> 
> --
> svn:mime-type = application/x-dosexec



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



RE: Request for Nofollow or Removal of Links to My Site at Openoffice

2016-09-24 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
[BCC us...@openoffice.apache.org]

> -Original Message-
> From: James Knott [mailto:james.kn...@rogers.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 05:35
> To: us...@openoffice.apache.org; supp...@formbirds.com
> Subject: Re: Request for Nofollow or Removal of Links to My Site at
> Openoffice
> 
> You sent this to a mail list for users of Apache Open Office.  We have
> nothing to do with the web site.
[orcmid] 

http://templates.openoffice.org is definitely found at the web site that is 
operated by the Apache OpenOffice project.  It makes sense that the project 
would be contacted.

However, the templates portion is operated by SourceForge.   

Unfortunately, this page is not helpful enough:
.

Someone who knows more about how to change entries or to delete them needs to 
be involved.

I am moving this to dev@ openoffice.org where it is more likely someone can 
help.

 - Dennis



> 
> 
> On 09/23/2016 11:24 PM, Formsbirds wrote:
> > Dear Webmaster,
> >
> > I'm writing to ask for adding "Nofollow" tag to the links that pointed
> to my site - formsbirds.com or remove them completely.
> > We found thousands of links pointed to our site from
> templates.openoffice.org. The links are under an account named
> susie...@yandex.com.
> > This was caused by a SEO team we hired. We want to get our templates
> shared to more users via your site and hired a SEO team to upload our
> templates to your site. But they are too aggressive and put too many
> links inside.
> > Now we found thousands of backlinks from your site, which are actually
> bad to our site.
> > We have contacted the SEO team to remove the links under the user
> account susie...@yandex.com, while they told us the account had been
> blocked and they couldn't log in to delete the links.
> > We ask for the removal of all the links, or just add "nofollow" tag to
> those links pointed to our website from your side. You can still keep
> the documents that have uploaded at your website if those templates ate
> useful to users, but please delete the links pointed to our site.
> > Katie Williams
> > Formsbirds.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org


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



RE: Tools for building and checking a release candidate

2016-09-20 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 15:59
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Tools for building and checking a release candidate
> 
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> >> From: Andrea Pescetti
> >> We are signing. ... Just, we do it in a way that Windows
> >> doesn't like.
> >
> > It is not about Windows not liking the PGP signatures.  It never sees
> them.
> 
> Sure. I wrote that Windows doesn't like the way we sign (detached), not
> that it doesn't like the signatures.
> 
> > To favorably compare a procedure that requires expert users to perform
> manually seems odd to me.
> 
> Just to be clear, and I have written it multiple times:
> Windows-compatible signatures would be nice to have. On the other hand,
> this would also need significant effort; and experience shows that it is
> not a major priority for Windows users (we've received only a few
> requests about it; Mac users, on the contrary, seem to ask for it more
> often, probably because of a stricter behavior on Mac OS X).
[orcmid] 

So, there is no need to provide greater user protection because casual users 
don't [know to] ask for it?

And the Operating System doesn't complain strongly enough?  

I think this would also give us more ability to discourage unscrupulous 
producers from wrapping AOO in their own .exe for their mercantile purposes, 
something that concerns us as a project.  We fairly regularly have to request 
that users be certain that they get their downloads from mirrors that we feed.

Most of all it demonstrates care in an observable form and is an aspect of 
being trustworthy.

I agree there are activities that trump this, such as data-loss crashers, 
saved-file corruption cases, and security-vulnerability fixes. 

I think we should keep our eye on this. 

 - Dennis


> 
> 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: Tools for building and checking a release candidate

2016-09-20 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 15:18
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Tools for building and checking a release candidate
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 14:37
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Tools for building and checking a release candidate
> >
[ ... ]
> > We are signing. We always did. Just, we do it in a way that Windows
> > doesn't like. The "signed installers" discussion comes from this
> > incompatibility.
> [orcmid]
> 
> A little touch-up on the situation.
> 
> It is not about Windows not liking the PGP signatures.  It never sees
> them.
> What Windows sees are Windows-specified signatures embedded in the
> downloaded software itself (and also on the DLLs and such that are
> installed.
> 
> These are part of the file properties.  Those properties that can be
> inspected by users and, even better, operating system software.  That is
> what we don't do (although other producers of OpenOffice-lineage
> software do).
> 
> To favorably compare a procedure that requires expert users to perform
> manually seems odd to me.
[orcmid] 

PS. What the embedded signature provides to not-so-expert users is an easy way 
to check that a download from any site is signed by an authentic source.  It 
also may pacify anti-virus and browser download tools. Those message requesting 
administrator permission to perform an install will also be more re-assuring.

Although not so foolproof *after* a download has been installed, with a little 
more expertise users can also verify whether soffice.exe, etc., are also 
authentic.   That could be true even though an installer delivered 
adware/malware on the side.

> 
> > But, security-wise, we are already providing a detached
> > GPG (or PGP) signature for all files. See
> > https://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing#sign-release
> >
> > 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: Tools for building and checking a release candidate

2016-09-20 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 14:37
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Tools for building and checking a release candidate
> 
> On 18/09/2016 Marcus wrote:
> > Am 09/17/2016 01:00 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
> >> Are there any tools to help put together an AOO release? If so, where
> >> are they?
> 
> We don't have any. But I've provided a script that I've just used for a
> test 4.1.3 build. It will find packages in a build tree (after the build
> has completed), arrange them in the appropriate directories, compute the
> hashes and sign.
> 
> It's currently located here:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/devtools/build-scripts/4.1.3/
> 
> It only works on Linux-64 but it is trivial to extend it to cover
> Linux-32, probably Mac OS X and maybe also Windows (provided one has a
> Bash environment).
> 
> > Maybe Andrea can help you as he has more experience, e.g., with
> uploads
> > to Sourceforge.
> 
> Uploads to SourceForge are trivial (just a rsync); but anyway they
> happen after the tree has already been arranged properly, so they are
> unrelated to arranging the tree.
> 
> >> Each binary needs to be signed, presumably by the person building it.
> > IMHO we haven't done any signing until now - at least not officially.
> 
> We are signing. We always did. Just, we do it in a way that Windows
> doesn't like. The "signed installers" discussion comes from this
> incompatibility. 
[orcmid] 

A little touch-up on the situation.

It is not about Windows not liking the PGP signatures.  It never sees them.
What Windows sees are Windows-specified signatures embedded in the downloaded 
software itself (and also on the DLLs and such that are installed.

These are part of the file properties.  Those properties that can be inspected 
by users and, even better, operating system software.  That is what we don't do 
(although other producers of OpenOffice-lineage software do).

To favorably compare a procedure that requires expert users to perform manually 
seems odd to me.

> But, security-wise, we are already providing a detached
> GPG (or PGP) signature for all files. See
> https://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing#sign-release
> 
> 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



FW: Resolution to Change the Apache OpenOffice Chair

2016-09-19 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
[BCC to PMC]

FYI, how this is done.

Project Chairs add items to the upcoming Board meeting agenda using SVN 
additions to the text.  This is how Board Reports are submitted, in spaces set 
for board-report attachments, and how other reports are inserted in slots of 
the agenda.

The agenda is structured such that it is easily converted to the (draft) 
minutes of that same meeting by the Secretary.  

Then when the Board approves those minutes at a future Board meeting, the 
approved minutes are published on the web at 
<http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/calendar.html>.

When Change of Chair resolution is approved at a meeting, that goes into effect 
immediately.  The new Chair receives a welcome message and instructions on some 
steps to take to be involved as a Chair.  This includes having permission to 
edit certain files that are the Chair's first duty.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 09:47
> To: bo...@apache.org
> Subject: Resolution to Change the Apache OpenOffice Chair
> 
> Already added to the Special Orders:
> 
> C. Change the Apache OpenOffice Project Chair
> 
>WHEREAS, the Board of Directors heretofore appointed Dennis E.
> Hamilton
>to the office of Vice President, Apache OpenOffice, and
> 
>WHEREAS, the Board of Directors is in receipt of the resignation
> of
>Dennis E. Hamilton from the office of Vice President, Apache
>OpenOffice, and
> 
>WHEREAS, the Community of the Apache OpenOffice project
>has chosen to recommend Marcus Lange as the successor to the
>    post;
> 
>NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Dennis E. Hamilton is
> relieved and
>discharged from the duties and responsibilities of the office of
> Vice
>President, Apache OpenOffice, and
> 
>BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Marcus Lange be and hereby is
>appointed to the office of Vice President, Apache OpenOffice, to
> serve
>in accordance with and subject to the direction of the Board of
>Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death,
> resignation,
>retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a successor is
>appointed.
> 
> 
> 
> 



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



[RESULT][VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

2016-09-19 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
[BCC to PMC]

The [VOTE] to recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for 
Apache OpenOffice has passed.

Tally

   +1 Jan Høydahl
   +1 Dennis E. Hamilton
   +1 Gavin McDonald
   +1 Herbert Duerr
   +1 Patricia Shanahan
   +1 Louis Suárez-Potts
   +1 Mechtilde Stehmann
   +1 Stuart Swales
   +1 Kazunari Hirano
   +1 Dr. Michael Stehmann
   +1 Carl Marcum
   +1 Andrea Pescetti
   +1 Jörg Schmidt
   +1 Olaf Felka
   +1 Dave Fisher
   +1 Dave Barton
   +1 Regina Henschel
   +1 Ariel Constenla-Haile
   +1 Roberto Galoppini
   +1 Phillip Rhodes
   +1 Keith N. McKenna

0 Marcus Lange
0 Peter Kovacs

   21  +1 Approvals
2   0 Abstentions
0  -1 Disapprovals


I will submit the resolution to the Board of the Apache Software Foundation for 
consideration at the Wednesday, 2016-09-21 meeting.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 08:36
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice
> President for Apache OpenOffice
> 
> [BCC to PMC]
> 
> RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
> Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President
> for Apache OpenOffice.
> 
> The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice serves in accordance with and
> subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the
> Foundation.  The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice is the Chair of
> the OpenOffice Project Management Committee.
> 
> Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on approval of the
> resolution.
> 
>  [  ] +1 Approve
>  [  ]  0 Abstain
>  [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
> 
> This is a procedural vote and a majority of binding votes is sufficient
> to carry the resolution.
> 
> Please do not do anything but [VOTE] (with any -1 explanations) on this
> thread.
> 
> To discuss this vote or the process, please use a [DISCUSS][VOTE] reply
> rather than discussing on the [VOTE] thread.
> 
> The [VOTE] will conclude no sooner than Monday, 2016-09-19T16:00Z.
> 
> 
> -
> 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] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

2016-09-18 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
+1

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 08:36
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice
> President for Apache OpenOffice
> 
> [BCC to PMC]
> 
> RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
> Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President
> for Apache OpenOffice.
> 
> The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice serves in accordance with and
> subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the
> Foundation.  The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice is the Chair of
> the OpenOffice Project Management Committee.
> 
> Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on approval of the
> resolution.
> 
>  [  ] +1 Approve
>  [  ]  0 Abstain
>  [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation
> 
[ ... ]


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



RE: Become the IMAP client for documents [Re: Differentiate or Die]

2016-09-17 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Xen [mailto:l...@xenhideout.nl]
> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 12:57
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Become the IMAP client for documents [Re: Differentiate or
> Die]
> 
> toki schreef op 17-09-2016 17:52:
> > On 17/09/2016 10:46, Peter Kovacs wrote:
> >
> >> (Maybe WPS is a good alternate to you then. I read in the german
> Linux
> >
> > Why would a program whose developers, in the name of destroying the
> > user
> > experience, removed features, functionalities, and capabilities. The
> > only user case in which that is a virtue, is one in which the user has
> > no qualms about not being able to open documents created with the
> > software.
> 
> After reading some threads on a Dutch review site I can't say I have
> really seen any positive reviews or remarks about WPS. Most of that came
> down to ill compatibility with MS products. I am sure it works fine on
> its own but also cannot save or open(?) in ODT.
> 
> I'm not sure if it is still based on OpenOffice?
[orcmid] 

Current versions of WPS do not support ODF Formats.  Only Microsoft Office 
formats are supported, beside the native .wps format.

The Windows version uses Qt and while one might see similarities in the GUI, I 
don't think there is any meaningful connection with OpenOffice. The "native" 
.wps format does not use a Zip package.  LibreOffice opens it though.  It is in 
the Microsoft DocFile format and could be a flavor of .doc.

Also, the software installs in AppData\Local\Kingsoft\WPS Office\ (on Windows 
10).

It all appears very smooth.  I have no idea about the quality of Microsoft 
format support, including OOXML.


[ ... ]


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



RE: Access denied on bugzilla ...

2016-09-16 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
Oh, OK.  It was the general | security category that did that then.

I think those *should* go to the security team and be made private 
automatically, just in case someone is inadvertently providing sensitive 
information that should be treated in confidence.

Then when the issue is seen by the Security Team, we can decide whether to 
change its classification, as I just did with Issue 127117.

I see that the explanation in the Bugzilla help for the general category is 
clear.  And we should continue to keep those automatically private until 
reviewed.

Removing general | security seems like a bad idea.  We just have to ensure it 
is used properly by providing the safeguard that's there now.

Does that work?

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 09:52
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Access denied on bugzilla ...
> 
> Dennis, please have a look into the history of the issue [1]. Here you
> can see that *Pedro has not* set the assignee. The reason is the BZ
> setting of the "security" component he has chosen at issue creation. So,
> it's not wrong that the issue was send to the security team.
> 
> We should think about not rooting these kind of issues to the security
> team.
> 
> [1] https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_activity.cgi?id=127117
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
> Am 09/16/2016 06:43 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> > Pedro,
> >
> > When you assign an issue to secur...@openoffice.apache.org, it becomes
> invisible to all but the security team.
> >
> > Since this is not about a vulnerability, I will change the issue to
> the default assignment.
> >
> > Please do not assign issues to others.  If you want to assign it to
> yourself, that is fine.  Otherwise use the default assignment.
> >
> > If you are ever dealing with an exploitable vulnerability, do not use
> bugzilla.  Communicate with the security@ mailing list directly.
> >
> >   - Dennis
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org]
> >> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 08:41
> >> To: OOo Apache<dev@openoffice.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Access denied on bugzilla ...
> >>
> >> FWIW ...
> >> I just tried to access BZ 127117, which I created in the first place,
> >> and now I got
> >> "You are not authorized to access issue #127117."
> >> It is only a very minor update to openssl, and I wanted to submit the
> >> patch to do it.(AOO bugzilla and I have never been in a good
> >> relationship).
> >> While here I shall explain the intent of the two recent requests: it
> is
> >> clear that we won't release soon updated, and hopefully secure,
> versions
> >> of some very basic support libraries/utilities. At least doing some
> >> minor low-hanging-fruit updates should save some pain to our users
> and
> >> some embarrassment to the project. The changes are very conservative
> and
> >> have been tested for a while in trunk but are superseded by the
> versions
> >> in trunk.
> >> I will let the RM and the security team determine if they are worth
> it.
> >> Regards,
> >> Pedro.
> 
> -
> 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: Access denied on bugzilla ...

2016-09-16 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
Pedro,

When you assign an issue to secur...@openoffice.apache.org, it becomes 
invisible to all but the security team.  

Since this is not about a vulnerability, I will change the issue to the default 
assignment.

Please do not assign issues to others.  If you want to assign it to yourself, 
that is fine.  Otherwise use the default assignment.

If you are ever dealing with an exploitable vulnerability, do not use bugzilla. 
 Communicate with the security@ mailing list directly.

 - Dennis


> -Original Message-
> From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 08:41
> To: OOo Apache 
> Subject: Access denied on bugzilla ...
> 
> FWIW ...
> I just tried to access BZ 127117, which I created in the first place,
> and now I got
> "You are not authorized to access issue #127117."
> It is only a very minor update to openssl, and I wanted to submit the
> patch to do it.(AOO bugzilla and I have never been in a good
> relationship).
> While here I shall explain the intent of the two recent requests: it is
> clear that we won't release soon updated, and hopefully secure, versions
> of some very basic support libraries/utilities. At least doing some
> minor low-hanging-fruit updates should save some pain to our users and
> some embarrassment to the project. The changes are very conservative and
> have been tested for a while in trunk but are superseded by the versions
> in trunk.
> I will let the RM and the security team determine if they are worth it.
> Regards,
> Pedro.
> 



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



RE: Become the IMAP client for documents [Re: Differentiate or Die]

2016-09-16 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
Minor touch-up about OneDrive and Microsoft Office Web Apps.

> -Original Message-
> From: Xen [mailto:l...@xenhideout.nl]
> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 04:40
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Become the IMAP client for documents [Re: Differentiate or Die]
> 
[ ... ]

> - Since there is no Microsoft Office client on Linux, and neither do
> they have an online editor, it becomes product to become that client to
> Microsoft OneDrive that can also edit or save in .docx format. Now there
> are a few meagre solutions for using OneDrive on Linux, but it is not
> much.
[orcmid] 

True, the Microsoft Office Linux client-penetration case is via Android.  

However, OneDrive does accept ODT documents and they can be viewed on-line via 
Microsoft Office Web Apps (now called Office Online).  There is online editing 
although it might require being a Microsoft Office user.  I will have to check 
that.  Also, it might be that a Linux-operating browser isn't compatible with 
what the Web Apps require. 

I have attached two PNG that show an ODT being opened in Word Online from 
OneDrive.  If they come through, you can see what the Microsoft Office Web apps 
look like.  The browser in one case is Internet Explorer 11.  In the second 
case, I used Chrome (and notice the offer of an Office Online Extension for 
Chrome).  In both cases the document is a trivial .odt that I created just to 
be able to check to check on the improvement of Office Online support for ODF 
over time.

PS: Since I have a Microsoft Lumia (Windows 10) smartphone, I just used the 
OneDrive application there to access the same file. In this case, the file 
requests permission to use an on-line conversion service and then opens the 
result as read-only and editing is only available if I allow the document to be 
saved in an Office format.  
   An unfortunate aspect of this mobile OneDrive client is that it does not 
show filename extensions and I don't see any way to change that. There is a 
thumbnail icon, but it is for Word, so a .docx of the same name looks like a 
second copy of the same file.  I have no idea how the OneDrive application 
manages and the Office mobile applications work together on Android and iOS.

> 
> Suppose AOO had its own OneDrive client plugin? That you could use AOO
> to browse and modify, load and save, documents on OneDrive?
> 
> Just the same as that Microsoft Office would do, is what I mean. Just
> become cloud-ready. Just allow a person to save on OneDrive.
> 
[ ... ]


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

[VOTE] Recommend Marcus Lange (marcus) as the New Vice President for Apache OpenOffice

2016-09-15 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
[BCC to PMC]

RESOLUTION: That Marcus Lange (marcus) be recommended to the
Apache Software Foundation Board to serve as Vice President 
for Apache OpenOffice.  

The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice serves in accordance with and subject 
to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation.  
The Vice President for Apache OpenOffice is the Chair of the OpenOffice Project 
Management Committee.

Please vote by reply to this dev@-list thread on approval of the resolution.

 [  ] +1 Approve
 [  ]  0 Abstain
 [  ] -1 Disapprove, with explanation

This is a procedural vote and a majority of binding votes is sufficient to 
carry the resolution.

Please do not do anything but [VOTE] (with any -1 explanations) on this thread.

To discuss this vote or the process, please use a [DISCUSS][VOTE] reply rather 
than discussing on the [VOTE] thread.

The [VOTE] will conclude no sooner than Monday, 2016-09-19T16:00Z.


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



[CONCLUSION] [NOMINATION REQUEST] Next Chair of AOO Project Management Committee

2016-09-15 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
The [NOMINATION REQUEST] period has ended.

There is only one nomination for the Next Chair.  There has been adequate 
discussion on the Project Management Committee already.  I will be initiating a 
[VOTE] on the project's recommendation of Marcus Lange to the ASF Board at 
once.  That message will describe the procedure.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 11:36
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [NOMINATION REQUEST] Next Chair of AOO Project Management
> Committee
> 
> I could write much and more but to keep a long story short:
> 
> I will volunteer to take over the role as next Chair.
> 
> Planned is a time frame of 1 year. But of course also a bit longer if it
> fits better for any (time) contraints.
> 
> I don't want to write here what should be done better or faster or ...
> as it doesn't make sense because - I'm pretty sure - it will always work
> out differently. Furthermore, this is not the thread to talk about this.
> 
> Just one addition:
> For ASF the Chair role is not to say what to do or where to go. The
> tasks are in more formal way and well described here [1] and here [2].
> So, you shouldn't expect anything else. Of course I'll do the same in
> the project (or more if my spare time permits) but than as an usual
> committer.
> 
> And at the end:
> If there are any other candidates please speak up now. Then we can start
> a discussion.
> 
> Thanks for your attention.
> 
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair
> [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
> Am 08/30/2016 10:30 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> > [BCC to PMC]
> >
> > I am now ready to begin the Chair nomination process.  Because of
> delays, the next change of Chair has moved to October 19.
> >
> > REQUEST FOR NOMINATIONS
> >
> > This message starts the nomination process for the next Chair for the
> Apache OpenOffice PMC.  The term of the next Chair will start on 2016-
> 10-19 and my resignation will be effective on that date.
> >
> > Members of the PMC can nominate themselves, expressing their
> willingness to serve.
> >
> > You can also place the names of others in nomination.  Those
> individuals must accept the nomination to be considered as eligible.
> >
> > The identification of Nominees will end on Tuesday, 2016-09-13.  The
> nature of subsequent discussion will depend on the number of Nominees.
> >
> >
> > TIMELINE
> >
> > Here's the new timeline that has the replacement be ratified by the
> October 19, 2016 meeting of the ASF Board:
> >
> > 2016-10-19 ASF Board Meeting - Board rules on the resolution to
> install the new Chair.
> >
> > 2016-10-12 (latest) Resolution from AOO PMC to accept the new Chair is
> added to the Agenda for the 2016-10-19 Board Meeting (latest possible
> date)
> >
> > 2016-10-05 (latst) [RESULT][VOTE] on election of next Chair is
> reported.
> >
> > 2016-09-28 (latest) [VOTE] on election of next Chair begins.  This
> could be by lazy consensus if there is already a single acceptable
> candidate.
> >
> > 2016-09-14 [NOMINEE DISCUSSION] process begins formally and any
> discussion on and among candidates willing to serve takes place.
> >
> > 2016-08-30 [NOMINATIONS] Individuals are recommended or offer
> > themselves, indicate their availability to serve for at least one
> > single-year term, and also have their own questions answered.
> >
> >   - Dennis
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> >> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 20:44
> >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> >> Subject: [DISCUSS] Process: Elect Next Chair of AOO Project
> Management
> >> Committee
> >>
> >> [BCC to PMC]
> >>
> >> [From the Chair]
> >> It is time for the selection of the next chair for the Apache
> OpenOffice
> >> Project Management Committee.
> >>
> >> INCUMBENT CHAIR
> >>
> >> I officially began my term on the third Wednesday of September, 2015.
> My
> >> commitment was to serve for one full year and then be replaced. I
> will
> >> complete that one-year term and step down on the third Wednesday of
> >> September, 2016.  My successor will then be established by the Apache
> >> Software Foundation Board.
> >>
> >> Although I will continue as a member of the Project Management
> Committee
> >> and as a contributor to the Apache Ope

RE: [discussion] Where to talk about Issues?

2016-09-13 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:legi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 00:02
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
> Subject: Re: [discussion] Where to talk about Issues?
> 
> Thanks for the info.
> I do not want to rampage through bugzilla and close/reject Issues
> because I
> think they are rubbish.
> Rubbish means I can not define the next action to proceed.
> So better discuss this first, and check for other opinions.
[orcmid] 

I agree, that is not desired.  It is more important to help in confirmation, 
solicit more information as necessary, and then see if one can get farther than 
confirmation.  

 - Dennis
> 
> All the best
> Peter
> 
> Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> schrieb am Mo., 12. Sep.
> 2016,
> 23:56:
> 
> > If you are offering to take action on a specific Issue, do so on the
> > Issue.  If you want discussion of a proposal to act, or you want a
> patch or
> > solution reviewed, do that here on dev@, pointing to the Issue.
> >
> > If you are requesting that someone else do something, here at dev@ is
> as
> > good a place as any.
> >
> > There are two important things to keep in mind:
> >
> >  1. Voting has no weight.  It is informative, as is all of the
> comments
> > about how something doesn't work.
> >
> >  2. Action is entirely by volunteers who have the capacity,
> capability,
> > and will to carry out some action.  The developers who work on
> something
> > are self-selected.
> >
> > There is no organization or management or executive structure to have
> it
> > be otherwise.  That does not mean others can't discuss.  It is just
> that
> > the only action occurs the way I describe.
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:legi...@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 14:24
> > > To: dev <dev@openoffice.apache.org>
> > > Subject: [discussion] Where to talk about Issues?
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > > If I would like to propose some action on a specific Issue, which
> > > mailing list do i reach out to?
> > >
> > >
> > > all the best
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> -
> > > 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
> >
> > --
> 
> Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre
> Antwort
> wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
> werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
> Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
> kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
> Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu
> Google
> konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
> wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
> verhandeln.


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



RE: Buildbot Notifications

2016-09-12 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
+1 Thanks Gav

> -Original Message-
> From: Gavin McDonald [mailto:ga...@16degrees.com.au]
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 19:34
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Buildbot Notifications
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> The commits list shows 142 commits so far this month - 98 of which are
> buildbot pass/fail notices. (69%)
> Last month saw 415 commits - 205 of which were buildbot pass/fail
> notices. (49%)
> 
> That’s way too much noise I feel.
> 
> 99% of the buildbot notices are repeats of the previous notice - i.e.
> pass,pass,pass,pass,fail etc.
> 
> I’m going to reduce this noise by only sending ‘change’ notifications -
> i.e. pass -> fail or fail -> pass
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Gav…
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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: [discussion] Where to talk about Issues?

2016-09-12 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
If you are offering to take action on a specific Issue, do so on the Issue.  If 
you want discussion of a proposal to act, or you want a patch or solution 
reviewed, do that here on dev@, pointing to the Issue.

If you are requesting that someone else do something, here at dev@ is as good a 
place as any.

There are two important things to keep in mind:

 1. Voting has no weight.  It is informative, as is all of the comments about 
how something doesn't work.

 2. Action is entirely by volunteers who have the capacity, capability, and 
will to carry out some action.  The developers who work on something are 
self-selected.  

There is no organization or management or executive structure to have it be 
otherwise.  That does not mean others can't discuss.  It is just that the only 
action occurs the way I describe.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:legi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 14:24
> To: dev 
> Subject: [discussion] Where to talk about Issues?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> If I would like to propose some action on a specific Issue, which
> mailing list do i reach out to?
> 
> 
> all the best
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> -
> 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: Bug#837178: linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64: All memory and swap is used up until system freezes

2016-09-11 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:b...@decadent.org.uk]
> Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 18:11
> To: Jose R R <jose@metztli-it.com>; 837...@bugs.debian.org; Wolfgang
> Tichy <wtich...@gmail.com>
> Cc: dev <dev@openoffice.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Bug#837178: linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64: All memory and swap
> is used up until system freezes
> 
> On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 17:37 -0700, Jose R R wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Wolfgang Tichy <wtich...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Package: src:linux
> > > Version: 3.16.7-ckt25-2+deb8u3
> > > Severity: critical
> > > Tags: security
> > > Justification: causes serious data loss
> > >
> > > Dear Maintainer,
> > >
> > > when I open a particular word document (it contains images and I
> > > can send it
> > > to you for testing) with libreoffice, all memory and all swap get
> > > used up
> > > within about a minute.
> >
> > You may want to *narrow down* your memory issue by trying out Apache
> > OpenOffice:
> >
> > Download: https://openoffice.org/download/
> [...]
> 
> Please, we don't need advocacy for rival software in the Debian BTS.
[orcmid] 

I agree completely, Ben.

I don't understand at all how dev@oo.a.o became included in this, since it has 
nothing to do with development at Apache OpenOffice.

My reading of the quoted "narrow down" was as a suggestion for forensic 
purposes, the same way I test apparent problem documents with different 
products to see if there is anything in the pattern that gives me clue about 
what the defect might be.  And even so, there is no reason that the dev@ 
openoffice.apache.org list be cross-posted.

I am told that a document-forensic suggestion was not the intention.

In that case I want to make it clear that the ASF is completely ecumenical 
about open-source software projects, sees forking as a feature, and does not 
participate in advocacy of one project over another.  So, in accordance with 
the ASF operating as a US charity that provides free software as a public good, 
the Apache OpenOffice project does not concern itself about "rival software."  

Individuals have their own positions, sometimes rooted deeply in the past, and 
that shows up on various lists.  Those are not official positions, whatever the 
association of the advocate with Apache projects.

That the technical analysis on behalf of an issue on the Debian Bug Tracking 
System was used in this manner is unfortunate and regrettable.  It was also 
inappropriate that the dev@ openoffice.apache.org list was also so abused.

I trust we can remove the cross-posting now and Debian developers can return to 
their important business without this distraction.

 - Dennis E. Hamilton
   ASF Vice President for Apache OpenOffice
   Chair of the AOO Project Management Committee

> 
> Ben.
> 
> --
> Ben Hutchings
> Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of old
> ones.


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



RE: Bug#837178: linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64: All memory and swap is used up until system freezes

2016-09-10 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
I don't understand the point of posting this message to dev@oo.a.o, especially 
with all the details of an apparent Linux problem in conjunction with 
LibreOffice (but not necessarily caused by LibreOffice).

I assume the recommendation of Apache OpenOffice is not as a substitute but to 
see if there is any forensic information to be gained by trying it too.  That's 
similar to why I compare AOO problems reported on .doc and .xls files in 
Microsoft Office and LibreOffice to see if there is anything different that is 
informative.

What did you have in mind, Jose?

> -Original Message-
> From: jose@metztli.com [mailto:jose@metztli.com] On Behalf Of
> Jose R R
> Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 17:37
> To: Wolfgang Tichy ; 837...@bugs.debian.org
> Cc: Debian Bug Tracking System ; dev
> 
> Subject: Re: Bug#837178: linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64: All memory and swap
> is used up until system freezes
> 
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Wolfgang Tichy 
> wrote:
> > Package: src:linux
> > Version: 3.16.7-ckt25-2+deb8u3
> > Severity: critical
> > Tags: security
> > Justification: causes serious data loss
> >
> > Dear Maintainer,
> >
> > when I open a particular word document (it contains images and I can
> send it
> > to you for testing) with libreoffice, all memory and all swap get used
> up
> > within about a minute.
> 
> You may want to *narrow down* your memory issue by trying out Apache
> OpenOffice:
> 
> Download: https://openoffice.org/download/
> 
[ ... ]



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



RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

2016-09-08 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
WARNING.  The ApacheOpenOffice. Org site described in this exchange is a 
malicious site. DO NOT INVESTIGATE.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Thomas [mailto:ma...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 02:08
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> On 2016-09-06 17:06 (+0100), Simos Xenitellis
>  wrote:
> 
> Just responding to these specific bits with my Apache Brand Management
> Committee member hat on.
> 
> > which claims that the Apache Foundation has the Apache OpenOfficeâ„¢
> and
> > OpenOffice.org®.
> > However, my search at the US Trademark database does not show an
> > "Apache OpenOffice" registered trademark.
> 
> Which is as expected. Note the TM. That denotes that "Apache OpenOffice"
> is a trademark, just not a registered one. It is a gross simplification
> but, for the ASF, it makes little/no difference to our rights whether it
> is registered or not. Registration does make it easier to enforce
> compliance should the trademark be infringed.
> 
> > It does show a live trademark for the old "OpenOffice.org" and also
> > for "LibreOffice" (for The Document Foundation).
> > But no "Apache OpenOffice".
> > Anyone can file for a trademark for "Apache OpenOffice", as they have
> > done already with the domain "ApacheOpenOffice.org".
> 
> If someone other than the ASF tried to register "Apache OpenOffice" as a
> trademark we would oppose that registration and I am very confident we
> would be successful.
> 
> Domain registration is not trademark registration.
> 
> The registration of ApacheOpenOffice.org looks to be abusive. The Apache
> OpenOffice PMC has some options for dealing with that. How they wish to
> proceed is a decision for them. Note that such issues are generally
> dealt with in private, not public, so you are unlikely to see a
> discussion about what to do about this specific issue on a public ASF
> mailing list.
> 
> Mark
> 
> -
> 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] Consolidating all the build guides

2016-09-07 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
+1

> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 14:49
> To: dev@ 
> Subject: [PROPOSAL] Consolidating all the build guides
> 
> As I have now some experience on building OpenOffice, I've also seen
> that there are alot of wikipages that describe to some degree of detail
> how to build.
> 
> I would like to consolidate them into a one or maybe very few:
> 
> 1. Search for everything that's available.
> 2. Cluster the pages that are duplicates or similar.
> 3. Combine the content with moving, merging, rearranging, deleting.
> 4. Finally, we have one or a few references everyone can save as
> browser bookmarks.
> 
> BTW:
> It's really hidden in a good way as I havn't found it again. Where are
> the configure options for the official releases we have done so far?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 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: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

2016-09-07 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 10:23
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> Hi Dennis,
> 
> I think that the appropriate place to keep this plan in whatever state
> it will be kept is on one of our wikis. Should the time come to consider
> it seriously we won't have long email threads to review which will lead
> to even longer threads.
> 
> Thanks for your consideration of my advice.
[orcmid] 

I agree, Dave.  Will get around to it.

 - Dennis
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On Sep 7, 2016, at 7:55 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote:
> >
[ ... ]


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



RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

2016-09-07 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
I have been receiving private communications agitated about whether or not the 
ASF would recommend a closed-source or commercial project as something someone 
might use as an alternative to Apache OpenOffice in the event of retirement.  
I'm asked whether or not prominent open-source alternatives would be 
recommended.

 1. It is premature to know what alternatives would be identified.  We are 
nowhere close to that.  This is my thinking out-loud.  It is not something that 
the PMC is discussion or considering.  There is no reason to work on such 
retirement details unless the need to go further arises.  For now, this 
[DISCUSS] is about identification of what would be involved and not something 
being put into action and detailed farther.

 2. Nevertheless, as I have already stated, my recommendation would be to make 
no recommendation, and especially not promote one over others using our 
automated check for updates.  Instead, there could be a retirement advisory and 
recommendation that alternatives be considered.  That could lead to a web page 
like the one we now provide where third-parties who offer support, other 
services, books, tutorials, etc., can be linked to, all without any 
endorsements.  One approach would be to open that up for other providers of 
productivity software as well.  The links would be to materials of those 
providers but there would be no recommendation.  There might be minimal 
information (platforms, ODF formats supported, other formats supported, 
localizations, extensions/templates available, but nothing deep - simple 
check-offs as offered by the providers).  This remains to be identified and 
populated and there is need to figure out details now or even agree on this 
approach.  

 3. I suspect that discussions about available software alternatives would 
arise on users@oo.a.o and particularly on the Community Forums.  That would 
happen naturally without requiring the project to take any positions or provide 
any kind of exclusivity of one provider over others.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 09:05
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
[ ... ]
> A couple of different observations:
> 
> >2.4 The mechanism for announcing updates to installed versions of
> OpenOffice binaries is adjusted to indicate that (a) particular versions
> are no longer supported.  (b) For the latest distribution(s), there may
> be advice to users about investigating still-supported alternatives.
> >
> 
> I was careful, there, not to indicate an automatic preference to another
> comparable software product.  Rather, I would prefer users be given a
> page that identifies alternatives for them to consider, whatever their
> license, whatever their commercial nature.  By the time that retirement
> would get to that point, I think there would be ample discussion and
> public knowledge of alternatives as well.
> 
> I support the idea of renaming any pivot toward becoming a framework.  I
> also think it would be good to allow AOO retirement, in that case, and
> have the framework effort go through incubation.  The AOO code base
> would remain to be cherry-picked and morphed, and probably undertaken in
> Git.  I also think that could be an opportunity to revitalize the ODF
> Toolkit podling effort and even meld the pivot into it.  The POI folk
> might have suggestions along those lines too.
> 
> Just 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: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

2016-09-06 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
+1

> -Original Message-
> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 08:23
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> +1
> 
> I'm here for the present and the future, not the past.
> 
> On 9/6/2016 8:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example, Rob Weir)
> >> were insulted by TDF representatives.
> >
> > It's important, in all of this conversation, to keep the interests of
> > the *users* first. This project is about producing software for the
> > public good, not about winning some contest, or nursing our hurt
> > feelings. We owe it to the users to forgive and forget actual and
> > perceived insults, and move on with our lives. Otherwise, what the
> > heck are we doing here?
> 
> -
> 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: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

2016-09-06 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
Response in-line.

> -Original Message-
> From: Federico Leva (Nemo) [mailto:nemow...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 03:30
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> I see the biggest point as missing from the list/plan posted by Dennis
> E. Hamilton: an easy upgrade path for current OpenOffice users, to make
> sure that people aren't inconvenienced and that the efforts OpenOffice
> contributors' made for the growth FLOSS aren't wasted.
> 
> Perhaps some of the install/upgrade facilities could automate the switch
> to LibreOffice, and/or the most visited URLs (such as /download/ on the
> OOo website and /files/latest/download on Sourceforge) could be
> redirected to the LibreOffice equivalents.
> 
> I'm sure the devs can find technically suitable solutions. If ASF can't
> handle such long-term preservation, another stable entity with long-term
> interest in the task could be transferred all assets and tasked with the
> goal (for instance The Document Foundation?).
[orcmid] 

The sketch is not developed to that level of detail and there would be much to 
consider if retirement, which would extend over months, were the option taken.  
The point of a graceful retirement is to ensure that the extensive OpenOffice 
community is well-served and achieves a soft landing.

Continuing the [DISCUSS], I pointed out that advice about where to find 
alternatives could be provided as part of the "updates available" periodic 
reminders at the web site.  My own preference is that we not choose a 
successor, but provide a menu of choices for users to investigate and choose 
from.  In general, ASF projects do not endorse products and services, but do 
provide information on what is available.  This strikes me as a valuable 
approach as part of any retirement scenario.

> 
> Nemo
> 
> P.s.: To archive a MediaWiki website, you can create a static copy with
> mwoffliner https://github.com/kiwix/mwoffliner and serve it with
> kiwix-serve; all history should be preserved with dumps on the Internet
> Archive: https://github.com/WikiTeam/wikiteam/wiki/Tutorial . Software
> for WARC can also prove useful for any website.
[orcmid] 

This is covered in the [DISCUSS] material.  In particular the Apache Attic 
project provides much of this.

Thank you for the information about kiwix-serve.  Creating static sites would 
be important in preserving the MediaWiki.

 - Dennis
> 
> -
> 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



FW: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

2016-09-06 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
Peter Kovacs had communicated his thoughts directly to me.  I am forwarding 
them to dev@oo.a.o with his permission.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:legi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 5, 2016 23:15
> To: orc...@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> Hi Dennis,
> 
> YES please feel free.
> I really would like to join. But I have to step down today. I hope I
> manage in future, with my sparse c++ and java skills.
> Also I do not want to boss around.
> But the team really should consider to give some official statements on
> the retirement idea, plus show that it is worth joining. Mid and long
> term goals are now super important. So more volunteers have reason to
> join.
> Currently you have managed to get a lot media attention.   use it.
> 
> All the best Peter
> 
> 
> Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org <mailto:orc...@apache.org> >
> schrieb am Di., 6. Sep. 2016, 04:53:
> 
> 
>   Peter thank you for your thoughts.
> 
>   I must tell you that the way that Apache OpenOffice operates as an
> Apache Project is without an Executive.  There is a Project Management
> Committee and I am the chair (and an Officer), but the work is guided by
> consensus in the PMC and the developer community.
> 
>   So we use the mailing list heavily as part of that.
> 
>   With your permission, I can forward your message to the developer
> list.  Otherwise, there is no way that your suggestions and observations
> will become known.
> 
>   Also, frankly the problem is about resources, not goals and
> strategies.  And, of course, it is all done by volunteers.
> 
>   Let me know.
> 
>   And, again, thanks for writing to me.
> 
>- Dennis
> 
>   > -Original Message-
>   > From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:legi...@gmail.com
> <mailto:legi...@gmail.com> ]
>   > Sent: Monday, September 5, 2016 17:01
>   > To: orc...@apache.org <mailto:orc...@apache.org>
>   > Subject: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve?
> (long)
>   >
>   > Hello,
>   >
>   > I write to you because i do not have the time to realy follow a
> mailing
>   > list you have, even if I take deep interest in it. Also in
> general i
>   > would like to join development, however there are currently
> different
>   > constraints that keep me from it.
>   > Still following passifly the discussion I would like to pick up
> some
>   > ends, which are from my outside perspective important. (besides I
> do not
>   > like Mailing list since I got flamed at on a debian user mailing
> list. I
>   > had a beginner question in 2003)
>   >
>   [ ... ]
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre
> Antwort wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google
> Algorythmen zwecks werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht
> auszuschließen das ihre Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter
> geprüft wird. Durch kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das
> ihre Mail, ihre Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren
> online zu Google konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird.
> Sollten sie dies nicht wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um
> z.B. alternativen zu verhandeln.



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



RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

2016-09-06 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
As different "technical press" outlets make their own derivations of other 
articles, there is incorrect quotation and reference to historical matters that 
have nothing to do with the present state and how we move forward.  

For me, the LWN and ArsTechnica coverage is relatively fact-based.  Now, there 
are some others that tend to be more responsible with regard to journalism:

 * PCWorld 
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/3116445/open-source-tools/openoffice-coders-debate-retiring-the-project.html>.

 * ZDNet, on the other hand, is lazily derivative by borrowing on other 
articles.  It also shows ignorance of how Apache projects operate when it 
mentions "lack of funding." and perpetuates the idea that Microsoft Office or 
LibreOffice be switched to in the CVE advisory.  The statement about other 
products was for testing dodgy Impress documents that users might be concerned 
about.  In any case, now that there is a hotfix, Version 2.0 of the advisory 
does not need to address that. 
<http://www.zdnet.com/article/onetime-ms-office-challenger-openoffice-we-may-shut-down-due-to-dwindling-support/>.

Finally, this discussion is not a zero-sum game.  Striving to expand 
development coverage and address the need to be able to make timely maintenance 
updates for dangerous defects, including security vulnerabilities are all 
important.  This [DISCUSS] is about anticipating all of the stages and moving 
parts to address as part of any graceful retirement.  That there is also 
inspiration of non-retirement alternatives is very useful and the rush to 
address that is heartening.  But all paths are contingent on having the 
capacity to act and adequate expert capabilities.  If retirement is the 
direction taken, that must also be while there is the capacity to carry it out.

It is also important to understand that this public list is *the* place to 
address all of that.  It is how the Apache Software Foundation provides 
transparency and embraces its community in developing its technical approaches, 
always striving to serve the public interest as required in its Charter.  Being 
suppressed by worries of outside scrutiny and adversarial articles and 
responses is not something that should dissuade us.  Problems have to be faced 
bravely and openly.

 - Dennis



> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 10:40
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> And here's another:
> <http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/openoffice-after-
> years-of-neglect-could-shut-down/>.
> 
> This one is also rather straightforward, using this list for its
> sources.
> 
> I looked through the comments.  There is nothing that we haven't seen
> before.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> > Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 08:05
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve?
> (long)
> >
> > Also, <http://lwn.net/Articles/699047/>.
> >
> > The article itself is very straightforward.  The comments wander
> around
> > all over the place with the usual pontifications about corporate
> > influence, etc.
> >
> > An important point is made, by the way, over how it is that
> LibreOffice
> > deployment is far easier than that for AOO, and also much improved.
> >
> >  - Dennios
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: RA Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
> > > Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 04:01
> > > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve?
> > (long)
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > our discussion became public:
> > >
> > > http://www.linux-magazin.de/content/view/full/106599
> > >
> > > This shows a public interest. So "going public" seems not to
> > difficult.
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > 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: Kay's activities

2016-09-04 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
Good, thanks for getting this.

The web site effort was extensive.  

Kay was also the one who, along with Marcus, identify issues as blockers or to 
have their fixes ear-marked for 4.2.0.  She did the same for 4.1.2.  So she has 
done more than watch the bugzilla.

 - Dennis



> -Original Message-
> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org]
> Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2016 17:03
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Kay's activities
> 
> I think some of our troubles, including the Mac Buildbot issue, are
> related to not identifying and picking up activities that were being
> done by people who have left the project.
[orcmid] 

Yes, and some of that is because folks often just go dark and we don't know 
they've left.  That is happening with list moderators too.

> 
> I asked Kay for some notes on her activities - posted here with her
> permission:
> 
> > I'll do my best. Here goes -- in reverse order of my particiaption
> >
> > * buildbot script maintenance (recently Damajan and I). Before that,
> > Herbert Duerr
> >
> > svn info:
> >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/buildbot/aegis/buildma
> ster/master1/projects/openofficeorg.conf
> >
> > Checkout is via: svn co
> >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/infra/infrastructure/buildbot/aegis/buildma
> ster/master1/projects
> >
> > which contains build scripts for all projects
> >
> > * monitoring BZ issues via iss...@openoffice.apache.org mailing list
> > Well presumably all developers do this.
> >
> > * monitoring commits via comm...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> > * subscription to infra
> > Normally this is not a big deal, and it's a VERY BUSY list
> >
> > * trying to fix bugs when I can
> > Well I am NOT a C++ programmer but was able to deal with stuff like
> > makefile problems
> >
> > * editing info on the wiki occasionally
> > https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Main_Page
> >
> > * editing pages on the project web site
> > http://openoffice.apache.org/
> >
> > *editing page on the end user web site
> > http://www.openoffice.org/
> >
> > NOTE: Both the web sites above involve use of the ASF CMS and staging
> areas.
> > See: http://openoffice.apache.org/website-local.html
> >
> > for details on what someone needs to do to deal with this.
> > This is where I started with AOO --bringing over the old
> OpenOffice.org
> > web site with Dave Fisher.
> >
> > * Updating the AOO update stuff when a new release comes out.
> > We have an "update URL" in AOO that is like an app inside AOO that
> pulls
> > new releases down for end users when I release comes up. Scripts are
> in:
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/updates-site/
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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



ooo-site "Participation/Help-Wanted" structure (was RE: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?)

2016-09-04 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2016 10:34
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?
> 
> Am 09/04/2016 06:43 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
[ ... ]
[orcmid] 

Forget about http://helpwanted.apache.org for the moment.  I think I know what 
is required there.

> >   3. I did look at putting something on the
> current<http://openoffice.apache.org/get-involved.html>  page.
> >
> > Although it is right there in the link, I kept looking for it on
> openoffice.org.  My error.  That explains why ooo-site does not have any
> get-involved/participate page with the "Diese Seite in Deutsch" line and
> the sentence " Although many are content to make a small donation to
> support Apache OpenOffice and the Apache Software Foundation (we
> appreciate every contribution), some users want to get more involved and
> volunteer their time and expertise with the project."
> >
> > Is this a hack on<http://www.openoffice.org>  to break out of the
> localization model and link "I want to participate in OpenOffice" to
> what we call the project site,<http://openoffice.apache.org>?
> 
> I don't understand your question. This exists since, hm, I don't know
> when, maybe ever.
> 
> It also creates a special island where certain kinds of task are
> recruited from the German Language community, with a separate dev-de@
> list.  That separation puzzles me.
> 
> This is not a special thing. It's just a translation of the English
> "get_involved" webpage.
> 
> I'm sorry but I still don't know what you really want to do.
[orcmid] 

Let me restate my question.

3a.  I found 
<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/site/trunk/content/get-involved.mdtext>
 once I realized I was looking in the wrong place.  I get that the page was 
created in June 2011 by robweir and was last updated in 2012 and then again in 
2015 when the link to a standalone German page was added.

3b. The adjacent German page was created on my birthday in January, 2015, by 
joesch.  

3c. My first question is why is not <http://www.openoffice.org/contibuting>, 
the material at 
<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/contributing/index.html>
 used?  If that is obsolete, should we not deleted that folder from the current 
SVN trunk?  

3d. My second question is, why is not <http://www.openoffice.org/participate>, 
the material at
<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/xx/participate/index.mdtext>
 used.  That page was created in August 2013 (also by robweir) and has been 
part of fixes made as recently as 2014.  This xx area is perfect for 
localization usage, and would allow others to create localized versions, it 
seems to me.  
  Again, if this folder is not actually used on the site, should it not be 
deleted from the current SVN trunk?
  My preference would be for the xx to be used so that the opportunity for 
localizations in other languages, not just German, could be handled in what 
appears to be the standard way.  
  
What is the barrier?






> 
> 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: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?

2016-09-04 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2016 02:09
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?
> 
> Am 09/04/2016 01:40 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-
> >> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> >> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 10:18
> >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org]
> >>> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 09:26
> >>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Re: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?
> > [ ... ]
> >> Something we can easily do already [as well], and we have not acted
> on
> >> it, is add the ASF Help Wanted widget in a number of places.  We can
> >> then populate the database the Widget uses with specific requests for
> >> assistance on Apache OpenOffice.  The benefit is that (1) these can
> be
> >> focused tasks, (2) the Help Wanted will also be visible in other
> places
> >> among the Help Wanted from other projects, and (3) the Help Wanted
> item
> >> provides enough properties about skill requirements and nature of the
> >> task, as well as a link to details that help the interested volunteer
> >> find details enough to decide how to contribute.
> >>
> >> Addition of the help-wanted widget can be done immediately.
> >>
> >> I have another promised activity for this US Holiday weekend, but I
> will
> >> dig into that too.
> > [orcmid]
> >
> > I figured out how to add the widget to the orange box on the Download
> page.  It does not fit will with that.
> 
> you don't need to figure this out on your own. You can ask me how it
> works. It would be much faster and more efficient. ;-)
> 
> > I think it is best to have the AOO Help Wanted Widget on a page of its
> own.
> 
> The widget points already to a webpage to its own [1]. We just need a
> point to this webpage and the text on the download page fits good for
> this purpose. We could add this on the main webpage, too.
> 
> Of course we can also think about changes to the "get-involved" webpage
> [1] to hightlight better the need for more devs.
> 
> > It could be linked to by other pages, where its list of help-wanted
> tasks can be lengthy.
> >
> > I am going to stop looking into that for now.
> 
> Sure, the idea behind the text can be changed how it should work or act
> to have a different effect. However, why do you think it is not working
> like it is now? Any points to reasons?
> 
> [1] http://openoffice.apache.org/get-involved.html
> 
[orcmid] 

I wanted to train myself and one way is to look at the code.  It helped me 
understand the way that the localization is handled in the .js JavaScripts that 
the web site depends so much on.  I wanted to discern the principles and then 
keep faith with them.

 1. With regard to the widget, I was able to add it to the Orange "Help Wanted" 
block on a test version of the English/default download page (the only page 
that has it on the live site).  The reason that I did not propose it is the 
widget does not look good that way.  A better widget using the current source 
of the data would be needed.  That becomes a more-involved dev-community 
activity and I was not prepared to go there.  Also, help-wanted widget is still 
experimental and we might run into maintenance issues as there is more 
development of the widget.

 2. The current widget (obtained from http://helpwanted.apache.org) can be 
customized to show just "openoffice" items.  I added one to confirm that works. 
 However, it appears that the widget does the equivalent of "show me 
everything" which is why it should be on a separate page.  The list could 
become rather long.  

We could also have a page that works more like the helpwanted.apache.org page, 
but about Apache openoffice only, adding a link to the helpwanted.a.o for folks 
who want to know about helpwanted-tasks for all ASF projects.  Before we do any 
of that, we need to populate helpwanted.a.o with more OpenOffice tasks.

 3. I did look at putting something on the current 
<http://openoffice.apache.org/get-involved.html> page.

Although it is right there in the link, I kept looking for it on 
openoffice.org.  My error.  That explains why ooo-site does not have any 
get-involved/participate page with the "Diese Seite in Deutsch" line and the 
sentence &quo

RE: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?

2016-09-03 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 10:18
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org]
> > Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 09:26
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?
[ ... ]
> > I would like to see every possible medium used to present one message:
> > "AOO is at serious risk of dying, unless we get more volunteer
> > developers, especially C++ programmers."
> >
> > I know we need other skills as well, but I don't want to dilute or
> > complicate that message.
> >
> > I would like a special mailing list recruitm...@openoffice.apache.org,
> > just for signing up and organizing new developers. No need for them to
> > start with dev@, especially the less experienced developers. Just send
> > an e-mail to recruitment@
> [orcmid]
> 
> We can, of course, add a mailing list.  That does mean we need
> moderators and we also need someone to watch the list and figure out
> what to do with the offers.
> 
> Something we can easily do already [as well], and we have not acted on
> it, is add the ASF Help Wanted widget in a number of places.  We can
> then populate the database the Widget uses with specific requests for
> assistance on Apache OpenOffice.  The benefit is that (1) these can be
> focused tasks, (2) the Help Wanted will also be visible in other places
> among the Help Wanted from other projects, and (3) the Help Wanted item
> provides enough properties about skill requirements and nature of the
> task, as well as a link to details that help the interested volunteer
> find details enough to decide how to contribute.
> 
> Addition of the help-wanted widget can be done immediately.
> 
> I have another promised activity for this US Holiday weekend, but I will
> dig into that too.
[orcmid] 

I figured out how to add the widget to the orange box on the Download page.  It 
does not fit will with that.

I think it is best to have the AOO Help Wanted Widget on a page of its own.

It could be linked to by other pages, where its list of help-wanted tasks can 
be lengthy.

I am going to stop looking into that for now.

> 
>  - Dennis


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



RE: Presence at ApacheCon Europe, November

2016-09-03 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
I am in the same position as Patricia and will not be traveling to European 
conferences.

> -Original Message-
> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org]
> Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2016 04:21
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Presence at ApacheCon Europe, November
> 
> 
> On 9/3/2016 2:55 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> ...
> > The latter option (not going) of course does not require anything, but
> > I'd still prefer to get an "I'm not coming" note especially from
> > Europe-based PMC members.
> ...
> 
> I would prefer to see at least one PMC member attend, and give a talk.
> If a group can do so, all the better.
> 
> I do not personally plan to attend, because of the time and energy it
> would take to get there, and back, from the west coast of the USA.
> 
> -
> 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: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?

2016-09-02 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 09:26
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?
> 
> On 9/2/2016 7:59 AM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
> > OK, counter-point to the other thread... let's talk specifically about
> what
> > needs to happen next, given that some (plenty|most|all|???) of us want
> this
> > project to
> > continue moving forward.
> >
> > What has to happen next?  What is the most important thing/things we
> could
> > be
> > working on?  What could I do *right now* to help move things in a
> positive
> > direction?
> >
> > How can we attract more developers?  How do we counter the FUD that is
> > already being promulgated in response to the "retirement" discussion?
> >  etc...
> 
> The "other thread" is actually liberating. Let's go public with the risk
> that AOO will be shut down, despite the wishes and best efforts of its
> remaining developers.
[orcmid] 

I think that is a great approach, Patricia.

> 
> I would like to see every possible medium used to present one message:
> "AOO is at serious risk of dying, unless we get more volunteer
> developers, especially C++ programmers."
> 
> I know we need other skills as well, but I don't want to dilute or
> complicate that message.
> 
> I would like a special mailing list recruitm...@openoffice.apache.org,
> just for signing up and organizing new developers. No need for them to
> start with dev@, especially the less experienced developers. Just send
> an e-mail to recruitment@
[orcmid] 

We can, of course, add a mailing list.  That does mean we need moderators and 
we also need someone to watch the list and figure out what to do with the 
offers.

Something we can easily do already [as well], and we have not acted on it, is 
add the ASF Help Wanted widget in a number of places.  We can then populate the 
database the Widget uses with specific requests for assistance on Apache 
OpenOffice.  The benefit is that (1) these can be focused tasks, (2) the Help 
Wanted will also be visible in other places among the Help Wanted from other 
projects, and (3) the Help Wanted item provides enough properties about skill 
requirements and nature of the task, as well as a link to details that help the 
interested volunteer find details enough to decide how to contribute.

Addition of the help-wanted widget can be done immediately.  

I have another promised activity for this US Holiday weekend, but I will dig 
into that too.

 - Dennis


> 
> The message should go out every way it can:
> 
> us...@openoffice.apache.org
> OpenOffice forums
> Press release
> memb...@apache.org
> d...@community.apache.org
> 
> We should also strengthen the current download page appeal for
> developers to state the risk of shut down.
> 
> 
> -
> 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: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

2016-09-02 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 22:08
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:motley.crue@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 21:23
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Cc: priv...@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve?
> (long)
> >
> > > (3) I think that working towards being able to release rather than
> > patch
> > > as Patricia has suggested is our best way to solve the security
> issue.
> > The
> > > quick patch is not much faster and has been proven to be more of a
> > > challenge then kick starting the broken build process.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Forgive me for being a little behind.  What is broken in the build
> > process?
> > Technical problem, or process issue, or other or what?
[orcmid] 

I should add that the situation recounted below was not the first time this 
happened.

Also, I gave the wrong date for when the CVE-2016-1513 defect was reported to 
us.  It was 2015-10-20, not 2016 of course.

Now, if you look at CVE-2015-1774, 
<http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2015-1774.html>, you'll see that 
the disclosure and related advisory was made on 2015-04-27 (that was Version 
1.0).  We did not have a fix, we had only the workaround.  This disclosure 
happened because the defect applied in the original openoffice.org code base 
and applied to other products that did have a fix.  The remedy, for AOO, was to 
remove the offending library and its use from 4.1.2 on 2015-10-28.

Furthermore, 4.1.2 was itself an emergency release because of the imminent 
disclosure of the other four CVEs fixed in that release and listed on 
<http://www.openoffice.org/security/bulletin.html>.  The peer distributions 
actually held up their issuance of security updates and disclosure so that AOO 
could catch up with 4.1.2.  If you look at the credits of those four CVEs, 
you'll see that the [OfficeSecurity] list members were instrumental in creating 
fixes that AOO also used.  Our problem was how much longer it took to produce 
the emergency release of 4.1.2 (and also desist from putting in other pent-up 
fixes to do so).

That was a nail-biter.  It was clear that the [Officesecurity] folk had lost 
patience with AOO as a hold-up of rapid repair of common defects in our 
products.  This was also stated very clearly at the AOO PMC.  (The AOO Security 
team can do much to analyze reported defects and figure out fixes, but it 
cannot do releases.  The PMC has to act on that.)

There was some unhappiness about forcing 4.1.2 out the door.  Some preferred 
going straight to 4.2.0 which, with UI and localization changes, would take 
longer and have increased regression risk.  That tension persists.

And here we are.

  2015-10-28 4.1.2
  2014-08-21 4.1.1
  2014-04-29 4.1
  2013-10-01 4.0.1
  2013-07-17 4
  2013-01-30 3.4.1 refresh (8 more languages)
  2012-08-21 3.4.1 incubating
  2012-05-08 3.4   incubating

> >
> [orcmid]
> 
> This is off-topic for this thread, but it may be helpful in illustrating
> why the Board wants to know what the project's considerations are with
> respect to retirement and in particular, with regard to avoiding the
> situation I will now recount.
> 
> The remark about a patch has to do with CVE-2016-1513, with our advisory
> at
> <http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2016-1513.html>.
> 
> The vulnerability, and a proof of concept were reported to the project
> on 2016-10-20 as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 was going out the door.
> 
> We had figured out the source-code fix in March.
> 
> On June 7, the reporter was concerned about sitting on the disclosure
> any longer and gave us a June deadline, proposing to disclose even
> though we had not committed to an AOO update.  We were sitting on the
> fix because we didn't want to give anyone ideas when they saw it applied
> to the source code unless there was a release in the works.
> 
> We negotiated a disclosure extension to July 21.  Part of that agreement
> was our working to create a hotfix instead of attempting to work up a
> full maintenance release (e.g., a 4.1.3).  On July 21 we issued an
> advisory that disclosed existence of the vulnerability without offering
> any repaired software.
> 
> We had the corrected shared library at the time of disclosure, but had
> not tested much for possible regressions with it.  Also, instructions
> needed to be written.  General Availability of the Hotfix, 4.1.2-patch1,
> was on August 30, after more testing, QA of the instructions 

RE: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?

2016-09-02 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
We all have these questions, Phil.  What we are awaiting is someone to provide 
an actionable answer.

There is nothing to do about the FUD (as is already remarked elsewhere on the 
What would ... thread).  That's a waste of energy.  What we need is energy put 
into having an AOO that serves its community.

Patricia and Marcus have already taken some steps and there is a call for 
volunteers on the download page.  

We need people to step up.  The folks we have are already spinning more plates 
than they have arms and legs.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:motley.crue@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 08:00
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: What would OpenOffice NON-retirement involve?
> 
> OK, counter-point to the other thread... let's talk specifically about
> what
> needs to happen next, given that some (plenty|most|all|???) of us want
> this
> project to
> continue moving forward.
> 
> What has to happen next?  What is the most important thing/things we
> could
> be
> working on?  What could I do *right now* to help move things in a
> positive
> direction?
> 
> How can we attract more developers?  How do we counter the FUD that is
> already being promulgated in response to the "retirement" discussion?
>  etc...
> 
> 
> Phil
> ~~~
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM


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



RE: Release Manager for 4.2.0?

2016-09-02 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
I don't have a good place to put this, and 4.2.0 may not be the way to consider 
it, if we are also counting on an early (this year) 4.2.0 to also provide 
important maintenance fixes and any security catch-ups too.

One major change that the TDF made to LibreOffice is very important.  Instead 
of producing complete binary sets (Windows x86, MacOSX, Linux32, and Linux64) 
for *each* localization, LibreOffice provides one complete set for *all* 
localizations.  The off-line Help is only in English, but localized off-line 
Helps can be obtained as small downloads.  The on-line helps reached by default 
are localized.

You can imagine how this simplifies deployment, including QA and binding votes. 
 They have also been using Windows .msi binaries, with Microsoft's signing 
method, for some time.

Somehow, it would be good to have a checklist of the kinds of things that we 
would like to try and confirm using rebuilds of a stable version, not just for 
emergency releases.  There are a number of deployment improvements that could 
be tested and QA'd that way without worrying about regressions inside of a 
feature release.

Just a thought.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 11:30
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Release Manager for 4.2.0?
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/19/2016 10:41 AM, Kay sch...@apache.org wrote:
> >
> > On 01/28/2016 04:06 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >> As I wrote a few day ago, in theory it would be good to release
> >> OpenOffice 4.2.0 in February. If it happens a bit later it wouldn't
> be a
> >> big issue, but I believe that, in the constant balance between
> periods
> >> where we are focused on talks (internal to OpenOffice and with the
> >> enlarged community) and periods where we are more focused on the
> >> OpenOffice product, it's time to start working again towards a
> release.
> >>
> >> For 4.2.0 we need a Release Manager. I would prefer NOT to be the
> >> Release Manager for 4.2.0 since I'm finding that in this period I can
> >> help more productively with tasks that do not require constant
> >> interaction than with tasks that require a constant monitoring of
> >> project channels.
> >>
> >> I am surely available to have a significant role in the 4.2.0
> release,
> >> especially with getting localization working again (actually, this
> mail
> >> also serves as announcement that I am going to ask for higher
> privileges
> >> on the Pootle server in order to check the translation workflow); but
> if
> >> someone else steps in as a Release Manager we could deliver earlier.
> >>
> >> So if anyone is interested feel free to discuss this on list, or to
> >> contact me off-list if you prefer, or to discuss in person at FOSDEM
> >> next weekend!
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>   Andrea.
> >>
> >
> > Hi all--
> >
> > I am volunteering to be release manager for 4.2.0.  I have been
> involved
> > in all the AOO releases since 3.40, and I'm familiar with the process.
> > Like all of us involved with the project, I am a volunteer. Due to
> this,
> > I can not provide an expected release date. Releases, as we know are
> > community efforts. We'll release when we feel 4.2.0 is ready.
> >
> > So, I will let this offer stand the weekend just in case someone else
> > feels they'd LOVE to do this. If we don't have any objections to my
> > being the next release manager over the next 72 hours, we can get
> > started next week ironing out what needs to be done. We will need LOTS
> > of help!
> 
> This looks ideal to me. I would like to learn the release processes, and
> try to document them as completely as possible. I would prefer to learn
> by watching and helping someone who already knows how it is done, than
> by jumping in the deep end and splashing about.
> 
> I have an agenda of constructing an emergency release procedure but it
> will be easier if I can first see how the normal process goes.
> 
> -
> 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: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

2016-09-02 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
Also, .

The article itself is very straightforward.  The comments wander around all 
over the place with the usual pontifications about corporate influence, etc.

An important point is made, by the way, over how it is that LibreOffice 
deployment is far easier than that for AOO, and also much improved.

 - Dennios

> -Original Message-
> From: RA Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 04:01
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> Hello,
> 
> our discussion became public:
> 
> http://www.linux-magazin.de/content/view/full/106599
> 
> This shows a public interest. So "going public" seems not to difficult.
> 
> Kind regards
> Michael
> 
> 



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



RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

2016-09-01 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:motley.crue@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 21:49
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Dennis Hamilton 
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> >
> >
> > What alternative do you see?
> >
> >
> >
> There's no particular reason that I can see, that AOO shouldn't be able
> to
> produce secure software, issue releases and
> do all of those other things.  We've done it in the past (and yeah, I
> feel
> guilty about saying "we" since I haven't been very active. Mea culpa),
> and
> it's not like the project caught bubonic plague or something.  Yeah, I
> know
> a lot of people prefer to contribute to LO and not AOO, and that losing
> the
> people IBM was paying was a big hit.   But I can't help but think
> there's a
> way to get more people involved and contributing here.  So I'd rather
> see
> discussion around "how do we attract additional
> contributors (or fix whatever other problems we have)?"  than talk about
> a
> "retirement plan."  I really do think that if people start putting a lot
> of
> energy into that, it will rob even more energy from the project.
> 
> Or maybe there are other options that could be considered, even if only
> as
> interim steps.  Somebody mentioned something about a problem making Mac
> releases. OK fine, let's drop Mac support for now.  Maybe that frees up
> some energy for other things.  OK, radical suggestion and probably won't
> be
> met with a lot of support, but the point is to say, let's think outside
> the
> box a little and see if there are some other ideas we could adopt.
> 
> 
[orcmid] 

I think you will be heartened that there is just such an effort underway and 
many think that will be the answer.

Are you one of those who can "put a lot of energy into it?"  Do you know where 
you'd direct that energy to come up with likely candidates for becoming more 
involved?

With regard to interim steps, it is striking to realize that, as low as the 
MacOSX population is, it is almost double our Linux user base [;<).




> 
> Phil


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



RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

2016-09-01 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:motley.crue@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 21:23
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: priv...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> > (3) I think that working towards being able to release rather than
> patch
> > as Patricia has suggested is our best way to solve the security issue.
> The
> > quick patch is not much faster and has been proven to be more of a
> > challenge then kick starting the broken build process.
> >
> 
> 
> Forgive me for being a little behind.  What is broken in the build
> process?
> Technical problem, or process issue, or other or what?
> 
[orcmid] 

This is off-topic for this thread, but it may be helpful in illustrating why 
the Board wants to know what the project's considerations are with respect to 
retirement and in particular, with regard to avoiding the situation I will now 
recount.

The remark about a patch has to do with CVE-2016-1513, with our advisory at 
.

The vulnerability, and a proof of concept were reported to the project on 
2016-10-20 as Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 was going out the door.  

We had figured out the source-code fix in March.  

On June 7, the reporter was concerned about sitting on the disclosure any 
longer and gave us a June deadline, proposing to disclose even though we had 
not committed to an AOO update.  We were sitting on the fix because we didn't 
want to give anyone ideas when they saw it applied to the source code unless 
there was a release in the works.  

We negotiated a disclosure extension to July 21.  Part of that agreement was 
our working to create a hotfix instead of attempting to work up a full 
maintenance release (e.g., a 4.1.3).  On July 21 we issued an advisory that 
disclosed existence of the vulnerability without offering any repaired 
software.  

We had the corrected shared library at the time of disclosure, but had not 
tested much for possible regressions with it.  Also, instructions needed to be 
written.  General Availability of the Hotfix, 4.1.2-patch1, was on August 30, 
after more testing, QA of the instructions and the fix, and adding a couple of 
localizations.  The QA period did turn up a couple of glitches and improvements 
to the instructions and also included scripts to simplify the task for Windows 
users.

There are two prospects for this year: a 4.1.3 maintenance release for some 
important maintenance-only items and the 4.2.0 feature release.  In either case 
it is likely that an update of any kind will be a year since the release of 
Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2.

If anyone wants to look into the issues of producing releases, I suggest you 
confirm the 4.1.2 release by compiling it from the source archive using the 
available build instructions and see how well you can replicate the released 
binary for the same platform.  Where we fall the most short is having enough 
folks who can do this for Windows and MacOSX, covering almost 95% of our user 
base [;<).

> 
> Phil


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



RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

2016-09-01 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
> -Original Message-
> From: Phillip Rhodes [mailto:motley.crue@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 21:16
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> Wow, just wow.  I have to say, I think even broaching this topic is a
> mistake.  "Self-fulfilling prophecy"? Not even that, it'll be a "3rd
> party
> fulfilling prophecy" as soon as this hits the press.  There are a lot of
> people out there who seem to have it in for AOO and have for a while...
> now
> you *know* there will be a headline appearing in the next week, reading
> "Apache OpenOffice Mulls Retirement" or "AOO Begins To Wind Down", etc.
> Yeah, it's crappy journalism, but it's almost 100% certain to happen.
> And
> that's just going to dampen enthusiasm even more.
> 
> I wish I could say I had a magic bullet of an answer for how to get
> things
> moving again, but I don't.  But I don't think opening a discussion about
> retirement and giving AOO's enemies more ammunition is a strong tactical
> move.
[orcmid] 

You're right Phil, it is not meant to be a tactical (or even strategic) move in 
some sort of adversarial situation.

How else can we work through these difficulties, and understand our options as 
a community?  

Being a project of the Apache Software Foundation brings with it some rather 
unique requirements for operation in the public interest and operating in the 
open with our community, including the public that relies on Apache OpenOffice 
software.

I don't know any way to accomplish that in a way that outsiders can't spin 
however they like.  We need the engagement and many eyes and thoughts of our 
community, as reflected here on dev@.  

What alternative do you see?

> 
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
> 
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look
> like.
> >
> >   A. PERSPECTIVE
> >   B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
> >  1. Code Base
> >  2. Downloads
> >  3. Development Support
> >  4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
> >  5. Social Media Presence
> >  6. Project Management Committee
> >  7. Branding
> >
[ ... ] >


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



RE: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

2016-09-01 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
[BCC to PMC]

> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 19:27
> To: priv...@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
> 
> Hi Dennis,
> 
> I don't have objections to this topic, but I feel I need to make a few
> suggestions before this thread is either ignored or a confused mess.
> 
> (1) a long, official policy statement like this is best put into a wiki
> page where many can edit it and it can be an easy discussion and not a
> confused email mess that is started with something that is tl:dr. The
> maturity model was recently developed by the comdev participants on the
> wiki and email
> Effectively. This document needs to be developed in the same way.
[orcmid] 

Good idea.  I see no reason not to follow that path.  This was my 
thought-starter.

I was not intending an official policy statement.  It is a discussion request, 
with some background information for perspective.  (Oh, I had to use orcmid@ 
a.o because of the BCC, since that's how I am on private@ though.  I see the 
confusion I causes doing that.)


> 
> (2) why is this cross posted to private and DEV? To do so implies that
> there is some other non-open discussion in parallel. You and I have run
> into unexpected results from this strange cross posting practice of
> yours (hi Simon)
[orcmid] 

It was not cross-posted.  I intentionally did not do that.  The BCC was to 
private@, just as I am doing now.  It was an easy way to provide a heads-up to 
the PMC for a discussion to notice on dev@, since some don't siphon through all 
of the dev@ material regularly.  It is not on dev@ as a cross-posting.


> 
> (3) I think that working towards being able to release rather than patch
> as Patricia has suggested is our best way to solve the security issue.
> The quick patch is not much faster and has been proven to be more of a
> challenge then kick starting the broken build process.
[orcmid] 

That would be interesting to determine.  Now that we have released a Hotfix, I 
think we can get it done more quickly in the future, but it is certainly not as 
good as simply offering the community a full update to install.

That is a different subject though.  It would be great to have that outcome.

> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On Sep 1, 2016, at 4:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Here is what a careful retirement of Apache OpenOffice could look
> like.
> >
> >  A. PERSPECTIVE
> >  B. WHAT RETIREMENT COULD LOOK LIKE
> > 1. Code Base
> > 2. Downloads
> > 3. Development Support
> > 4. Public-Project Community Interfaces
> > 5. Social Media Presence
> > 6. Project Management Committee
> > 7. Branding
> >
[ ... ]


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



RE: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO

2016-09-01 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 22:04
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
> 
> Am 01.09.2016 um 00:59 schrieb Simon Phipps:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
> > dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: toki [mailto:toki.kant...@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:30
> >>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
> >>>
> >>> On 31/08/2016 16:26, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> >>>
> >> I think that is the case because downstream producers, who get the
> support
> >> business, contribute to their upstream framework or source-code
> distributor.
> >>
> >> What indication is there that any of that is working for Apache
> >> OpenOffice?  Maybe if we stopped shipping binaries?  How would that
> work
> >> for the individuals who seem to dominate our download consumption?
> >
> >
> > Since the "downstream" producers seem better equipped to deliver
> signed and
> > vulnerability-corrected binaries to non-specialist consumers on a
> timely
> > schedule, maybe delegating downloads to them would be a good option
> for the
> > project?
> 
> Stopping shipping binaries would cause some negative effect for our
> project, so it might be an option, but not best one.
> 
> Binaries made by our community are essential for our QA.
> 
> Without them we stand "with empty hands" in the public with negative
> effects for our brand and image.
> 
> Supporting our users by community members would break down.
> 
> So the impact for the improvement of our commity would be tremendous, if
> we "delegate" this tasks to a third party.
[orcmid] 

I agree with Michael.  Ceasing to provide builds from Apache OpenOffice but 
having a downstream producer provide them would be retirement of Apache 
OpenOffice in everything but name only.

Also, the "downstream" in this thread refers to sellers of support who 
apparently package their own versions.  We see no contributions back to the 
code base from any of those, whoever they might be.

This is different than existence of forks and openoffice.org-descendant cousins 
who operate their own code base and support it, whoever those might be.  While 
that might be disagreeable to some, it is in the spirit of open-source and the 
commitment of the Apache Software Foundation to serving the public interest.  
(The protection of the respective trademarks is a different matter with respect 
to avoiding confusion about the origin of the effort.)


> 
> Kind regards
> Michael
> 
> 



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



RE: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO

2016-08-31 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: toki [mailto:toki.kant...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:30
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
> 
> On 31/08/2016 16:26, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 
> > One can always create an independent entity.  It hasn't happened.  By
> now, the odds are clearly that it will not.
> 
> The Document Foundation is an independent entity, building upon the OOo
> 3.x code base.
> 
> > My considered opinion is that the greatest barrier is lack of a
> meaningful business/operation/funding model.
> 
> The business model is giving away the product, but selling support
> services. Sun almost understood that model. Oracle understands that
> model,but would rather throw away their product, than actually implement
> that model at the SOHO, or smaller scale.
> 
> As a business model, it works for most of the Apache projects that
> emerged from Incubation, and stayed out of the Attic.
[orcmid] 

I think that is the case because downstream producers, who get the support 
business, contribute to their upstream framework or source-code distributor.  

What indication is there that any of that is working for Apache OpenOffice?  
Maybe if we stopped shipping binaries?  How would that work for the individuals 
who seem to dominate our download consumption?


> 
> > I also don't think working on Apache OpenOffice is much of a resume
> builder,
> 
> What builds resumes is the specific contributions one makes. The
> specific project, be it AOo, No Man's Sky, BLEACHER, or anything else,
> is irrelevant.
> 
> >since there is no other project like it and probably will never be.
> 
> At least four other office suites utilize code from AOo. There are at
> least a thousand office suites for Android, and iOS, for which AOo
> development is a useful starting point.
> 
> > If my appraisal is sound, that leaves us with the question about
> sustainability of the Apache OpenOffice project itself,
> 
> Go back to the revenue generation model.
> 
> Back in the 2003-2005 time frame, there were several organizations
> licensing their rebranded version of OOo for between US$20 and US$5,000
> per seat, per year. For various reasons, I quit tracking that data, and
> thus don't know what the current situation is.
> 
> A decade ago, it was fairly difficult to find worksites of more than
> 1,000 that used OOo. Today, worksites of more than 5,000 users, using an
> OOo derivative, are not not that scarce. Somebody is providing tech
> support for those worksites.
[orcmid] 

And how does any of that contribute to the development of Apache OpenOffice?  
As far as I can tell, those downstream activities are invisible to the project.

 - Dennis

> 
> jonathon
> 
> -
> 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: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO

2016-08-31 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
One can always create an independent entity.  It hasn't happened.  By now, the 
odds are clearly that it will not.  I suspect that folks who would pursue that 
avenue do not see a meaningful opportunity.

My considered opinion is that the greatest barrier is lack of a meaningful 
business/operation/funding model.  In addition, there is an insufficient supply 
of developers having the capacity, capability, and will to provide material 
improvements to Apache OpenOffice.  Whatever the pool might be, it is aging and 
shrinking for many reasons.  The affliction that Apache OpenOffice suffers 
under in that respect also besets any organization set up to support the code, 
even with paid developers.

I also don't think working on Apache OpenOffice is much of a resume builder, 
since there is no other project like it and probably will never be.  There are 
far easier projects to build an open-source reputation with, ones that build 
developer skills in areas where there is a growing and future demand.   

Having suggested this much, I don't think it is meaningful to address how an 
external entity could "ensure they work on the AOO codebase using the ASF way."

If my appraisal is sound, that leaves us with the question about sustainability 
of the Apache OpenOffice project itself, and what the consequences of 
unsustainability are.

 - Dennis


> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 14:04
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
> 
> There is a bit to discuss about how "The entity should ensure they work
> on the AOO codebase using the ASF way" is workable or not.  In
> particular, no such entity can direct the project at Apache or otherwise
> effectively govern it.  More about that later.
> 
> There is another option, summarized below.  One might also consider this
> as a reality check.  That is, if that is not feasible, it may be that no
> other arrangement is.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Suminda Dharmasena [mailto:sirinath19...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 00:23
> > To: market...@openoffice.apache.org; dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am writing to see if the current AOO Dev team would like to create
> an
> > independent entity which can:
> >
> >- Do trainings
> >- Accept funds and have pay developers
> >- Write commercial books / online tutorials with sponsorship
> >
> > This can be used have paid developers working on the project. Maybe
> > initial
> > sponsorship can come from an organisation like Redhat, Pivotal or
> Micro
> > Focus if they are interested. Perhaps companies which used the code
> base
> > in
> > the past like IBM or Oracle.
> >
> > The entity should ensure they work on the AOO codebase using the ASF
> > way.
> >
> > Suminda
> [orcmid]
> 
> AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
> 
> Another way to interact and support Apache OpenOffice in terms of
> collaborative contributions is as follows.
> 
>  1. Establish a downstream producer, TeamX (for example), that provides
> releases of derivative software based on Apache OpenOffice.
> 
>  2. Assumption #1: The Apache License Version 2 (ALv2) is honored in the
> use of Apache OpenOffice source code.  Apache trademark requirements are
> satisfied in any use as part of the branding of the downstream product.
> 
>  3. Assumption #2: New code and modifications to the TeamX derivative
> are also under ALv2.
> 
>  4. Open-Source Good Citizenship: The ALv2-licensed fixes and repairs
> are contributed back upstream to Apache OpenOffice.  Components from
> other sources would, of course, be contributed upstream to those
> sources.  Contributions and joint concerns might lead to use of the
> OpenOffice bugzilla as a coordination point.
> 
>  5. Opportunity.  The business model, organization, and governance of
> TeamX is not of concern to the ASF.
> 
>  6. Opportunity.  The Apache Software Foundation requirements beyond
> honoring of the ALv2 that govern Apache projects serving the public
> interest do not apply, although TeamX could operate in a harmonious
> manner.
> 
>  7. Opportunity. So long as there is clear separation and no comingling
> in source-code files, TeamX is not constrained from also using code or
> components from other projects, such as those using licenses such as the
> MPL or, under appropriate conditions, something like LGPL2, with
> appropriate honoring of those licenses too.  However, to avoid tainting
> of upstream source-code contributions back to Apache OpenOffice

RE: Merge with LibreOffice?

2016-08-31 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Απόστολος Συρόπουλος [mailto:asyropoulos...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2016 12:36
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: ΑΠ: Merge with LibreOffice?
> 
> 
> >> Greetings, dear AOO community.
> >>
> >> Please note first that this message is not supposed to be flaimbait
> or
> >> trolling of any kind.
> >
> >It is. Have a nice day.
> 
> Well it is not! I am Solaris user and sometime ago I tried to compile
> OpenOffice, when
> in fact it should compile on Solaris out-of-the-box... I asked the core
> developers
> to drop support for SunStudio since it assumes one compiles with a
> version that
> shipped with Solaris 9 (the current version of Solaris is 11 and Solaris
> 9 was eoled a
> few years ago...) and it does not compile even with recent versions of
> SunStudio.
> And when I managed to compile everything, I had noticed that OpenOffice
> could
> not open docx and othe zipped document formats. The people of
> LibreOffice
> asked me to incorporate my patches to their source tree (I had of course
> no
> objection). Now LibreOffice compiles just fine under Solaris and there
> are packages
> for all variants of Solaris including the Open version. In a nutshell,
> some people
> listen and care about any user while some others just don't give a
> dime...
> 
> Regards,
> A.S.
[orcmid] 

The Apache OpenOffice project does not have the capacity for what you are able 
to find elsewhere.

As you know, the Apache OpenOffice project has never provided a Solaris 
distribution, although there were folks who managed to build one themselves.

The same goes for OS/2, although OS/2 patches are contributed back upstream.

There are probably other efforts that we simply don't know about.

The question I am left with is this: If a cousin development provides what you 
want, why are you not satisfied with that?

 - Dennis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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: [E-devel] Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 locks in Enlightenment 0.21.99.21605

2016-08-31 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
[BCC to AOO dev list]

Please remove dev@openoffice.apache.org from these messages.  The discussion 
seems to have little to do with Apache OpenOffice and there appears to be 
nothing that the project can contribute with respect to this issue.  

If that is not the case, please open a bugzilla issue about it on the Apache 
OpenOffice project.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) [mailto:ras...@rasterman.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 16:45
> To: Jose R R 
> Cc: Enlightenment developer list  de...@lists.sourceforge.net>; dev 
> Subject: Re: [E-devel] Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 locks in Enlightenment
> 0.21.99.21605
> 
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 04:22:00 -0700 Jose R R  said:
> 
> > Thanks for replying.
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Carsten Haitzler
> 
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 03:42:52 -0700 Jose R R 
> said:
> > >
> > >> Niltze [Hello], all!
> > >>
> > >> I've noticed that Enlightenment 0.17.x.y and 0.21.x.y GUI
> environment
> > >> sometimes becomes locked upon mousing over icons in Apache
> OpenOffice
> > >> 4.1.2.
> > >>
> > >> Notwithstanding, when I built Enlightenment 0.19.x.y and 0.20.xy,
> the
> > >> locking issue disappeared and I thought it was resolved; but then
> issue
> > >> reappeared once more in Enlightenment 0.21.x.y. I have to CTRL +
> ALT and
> > >> press F1, F2, etc. to get another shell, login and restart XDM.
> > >>
> > >> Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > > is e stuck - has it crashed? do you get a crashdump?
> > E21 must be 'stuck' -- as I can't locate a 'crashdump'.
> >
> > Please see pic at:
> > <
> > https://metztli.it/blog/media/blogs/ixiptli/quick-
> uploads/p125/e21_apacheoo_issue.png?mtime=1472553272
> > >
> > >
> > > https://www.enlightenment.org/docs-efl-debug
> > I will try this as time avails. Thank you.
> > >
> > > you can also find if it isnt crashing by forcing a segv and seeing
> where
> > > the bt says it was stuck:
> > >
> > > killall -SEGV enlightenment
> > I have executed above directive and Recovery option seems useful -- as
> > I don't have to restart XDM, thus potentially preserving existing
> > sessions and/or data/work; again, please snapshot above and if
> > interested for context, post entry:
> > <
> > https://metztli.it/blog/index.php/ixiptli/eterm-and-enlightenment-
> window-manager
> > >
> 
> so when you sent a SEGV to enlightenment... after that did you have
> ~/.e-crashdump.txt ? because you now FORCED it to crash, thus a
> crashdump
> should be produced. this may not work if yama ptrace is enabled.
> 
> sudo sysctl -w kernel.yama.ptrace_scope=0
> 
> 
> will turn that off. you need gdb installed too. also when compiling e
> and efl
> you need your CFFLAGS to contain "-g" to enable gdb debug symbols of
> course.
> 
> export CFLAGS="-g -O2 -march=native -fvisibility=hidden -ffast-math"
> 
> for example before you compile.
> 
> remember - e APPENDS to the crashdump file every crash, so the most
> recent
> crash is the last bt set - grep for "pause" to find the crash points. :)
> 
> so crashdump file after this? that'll tell use what's up. hopefully. or
> give us
> another thing to follow.
> 
> p.s.
> 
> btw - why eterm? eterm is fine and all but its an old old old school
> terminal
> still using xlib directly etc. terminology is the modern terminal that
> uses efl
> et. (runs even on OSX too) that has real bells and whistles (videos in
> the bg,
> inline image display, tabs AND splits etc.)? and it does PROPER
> transparency -
> no "esetroot" with fake "lets copy parts of the background pixmap into
> app
> window to make it look transparent but only with a wallpaper".
> 
> > >
> > > --
> > > - Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --
> 
> > > The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)ras...@rasterman.com
> > >
> >
> >
> > Best Professional Regards.
> >
> > --
> > Jose R R
> > http://metztli.it
> > --
> ---
> > Try at no charge http://b2evolution.net for http://OpenShift.com PaaS
> > --
> ---
> > from our GitHub http://Nepohualtzintzin.com repository. Cloud the easy
> way!
> >
> 
> 
> --
> - Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --
> The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)ras...@rasterman.com
> 
> 
> -
> 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: [REPORT] CVE-2016-1513 Security Advisory

2016-08-30 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Rodrigo Marin-Rogers [mailto:rodmarog...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 16:44
> To: annou...@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [REPORT] CVE-2016-1513 Security Advisory
> 
> Dear Dennis:
> 
>  The hotfix download and installation process is quite long and
> complicated for the general users who are not developers.  Why don't you
> just create a new version with the hotfix already included much easier
> to download.  I've lost several documents that showed as corrupt when I
> tried to reopen them,  then I suspected that something like this was
> happening, so I deleted them from my computer.
> 
>   Thank you for your kind concern,  Please let me know if you create
> such new version!
> 
> Truly yours,
> 
> 
> 
>   Rodrigo.
[orcmid] 

Thank you for the feedback, Rodrigo.

It may be months before there is a full update for Apache OpenOffice.  The 
hotfixes are for those able to make use of them in the meantime.  The reason we 
make the README files available to be read first is so folks can calibrate 
whether they want to go through it or not.

With regard to your document corruption experience, that is not the behavior 
associated with the CVE-2016-1513 vulnerability.  They were probably damaged in 
the Save process.  That is not unknown.

 - Dennis
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org
> <mailto:orc...@apache.org> > wrote:
> 
> 
>   [BCC PMC]
> 
>   Today, Version 2.0 of the Advisory for CVE-2016-1513  1513>  has been issued.
> 
>   There is now general availability of a Hotfix that can be
> downloaded and applied to installations of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2.  The
> Hotfix details can be found at
>   <http://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/hotfix.html
> <http://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/hotfix.html> >.
> 
>   Please review the README instructions before deciding to download
> and apply the Hotfix.
[ ... ]



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



RE: Updated Security Advisory: CVE-2016-1513 Memory Corruption Vulnerability (Impress Presentations)

2016-08-30 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
Thanks for the feedback, Don.

Please provide more details (and copy the public dev@ user list) so we can 
narrow in on the problem.

Which version of Windows 10 are you running?  Windows 10 Home or Windows 10 Pro?

Are you following the steps in the README file for the Windows 4.1.2-patch1 
Hotfix?

By "Open the Patch" do you mean the .zip file or do you mean attempting to run 
the APPLY .bat file?

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Don Rake [mailto:raked...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 14:12
> To: annou...@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Updated Security Advisory: CVE-2016-1513 Memory Corruption
> Vulnerability (Impress Presentations)
> 
> Windows 10 won't let me open the patch.
> 
> 
[ ... ]



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



[NOMINATION REQUEST] Next Chair of AOO Project Management Committee

2016-08-30 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
[BCC to PMC]

I am now ready to begin the Chair nomination process.  Because of delays, the 
next change of Chair has moved to October 19.

REQUEST FOR NOMINATIONS

This message starts the nomination process for the next Chair for the Apache 
OpenOffice PMC.  The term of the next Chair will start on 2016-10-19 and my 
resignation will be effective on that date.

Members of the PMC can nominate themselves, expressing their willingness to 
serve.

You can also place the names of others in nomination.  Those individuals must 
accept the nomination to be considered as eligible.

The identification of Nominees will end on Tuesday, 2016-09-13.  The nature of 
subsequent discussion will depend on the number of Nominees.


TIMELINE

Here's the new timeline that has the replacement be ratified by the October 19, 
2016 meeting of the ASF Board:

2016-10-19 ASF Board Meeting - Board rules on the resolution to install the new 
Chair.

2016-10-12 (latest) Resolution from AOO PMC to accept the new Chair is added to 
the Agenda for the 2016-10-19 Board Meeting (latest possible date)

2016-10-05 (latst) [RESULT][VOTE] on election of next Chair is reported.

2016-09-28 (latest) [VOTE] on election of next Chair begins.  This could be by 
lazy consensus if there is already a single acceptable candidate.

2016-09-14 [NOMINEE DISCUSSION] process begins formally and any discussion on 
and among candidates willing to serve takes place.

2016-08-30 [NOMINATIONS] Individuals are recommended or offer
themselves, indicate their availability to serve for at least one
single-year term, and also have their own questions answered.

 - Dennis


> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 20:44
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Process: Elect Next Chair of AOO Project Management
> Committee
> 
> [BCC to PMC]
> 
> [From the Chair]
> It is time for the selection of the next chair for the Apache OpenOffice
> Project Management Committee.
> 
> INCUMBENT CHAIR
> 
> I officially began my term on the third Wednesday of September, 2015. My
> commitment was to serve for one full year and then be replaced. I will
> complete that one-year term and step down on the third Wednesday of
> September, 2016.  My successor will then be established by the Apache
> Software Foundation Board.
> 
> Although I will continue as a member of the Project Management Committee
> and as a contributor to the Apache OpenOffice project, I am not
> available to continue as Chair beyond the 2016-09-21 ASF Board Meeting.
> I am available to assist the incoming Chair in any manner required for
> successfully transferring duties of the Chair.
> 
> CHAIR ELECTION
> 
> Based on previous practice, nomination, discussion, and election periods
> are held.  Here is my proposed time-line, from endgame backwards:
> 
> 2016-09-21 ASF Board Meeting - Board rules on the resolution to install
> the new Chair.
> 
> 2016-09-14 Resolution from AOO PMC to accept the new Chair is added to
> the Agenda for the 2016-09-21 Board Meeting (latest possible date)
> 
> 2016-09-07 [RESULT][VOTE] on election of next Chair is reported.
> 
> 2016-08-31 [VOTE] on election of next Chair begins (with allowance for
> US Holiday weekend).  This could be by lazy consensus if there is
> already a single acceptable candidate.
> 
> 2016-08-17 [NOMINEE DISCUSSION] process begins formally and any
> discussion on and among candidates willing to serve takes place.
> 
> 2016-08-03 [NOMINATIONS] Individuals are recommended or offer
> themselves, indicate their availability to serve for at least one
> single-year term, and also have their own questions answered.
> 
> This process can be accelerated where it is seen that discussions have
> quieted and consensus for moving forward is evident.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> 
> -
> 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: [PROBLEM] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

2016-08-30 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 13:27
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROBLEM] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-
> patch1 Hotfixes
> 
> Am 08/29/2016 04:39 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> > There is a problem with the README files for Windows not being
> populated to archive.apache.org.
> >
> > I suspect it has to do with the file name beginning with README, since
> the files such as Linux32.README.txt populated to the archive area just
> fine.
> >
> > To rename the files everywhere is going to be a serious regression
> risk.
> >
> > Instead, I am going to copy the three Windows README files (en-US, de,
> and nl) to openoffice.org in the folder for security bulletins.  They
> will be linked to directly from hotfix.html.
> >
> > The hotfix.html file will be updated to locate those README files in
> that location once they are present.
> >
> > Then I will complete this long and winding road with the updated
> advisory.
[orcmid] 

Done.  General availability announcement now going to the lists.

 - Dennis
> 
> great. However, if you need some more help, just let us know.
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> >> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 10:28
> >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> >> Cc: l...@openoffice.apache.org; q...@openoffice.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice
> 4.1.2-
> >> patch1 Hotfixes
> >>
> >> [BCC to PMC, FYI to L10N and QA.]
> >>
> >> The 4.2.1-patch1 release repository is now populated with the only
> >> localizations that we have: English (en-US) and German (de) for all
> >> platforms plus the additional Nederland (nl) for Windows.  The
> >> localizations took until yesterday, 2016-08-25, to be completed.
> >>
> >> Propagation to the archive site has begun and will probably not be
> >> complete for another 24 hours.  Meanwhile, an updated CVE-2016-1513
> will
> >> be prepared.  The update will be posted when the archive is stable,
> >> along with notification to dev@ and users@.  Those actions will
> provide
> >> the general availability of the Hotfix.
> >>
> >> While minor blemishes may remain, this material will be kept stable
> as
> >> is unless a serious defect is brought to our attention.  Cosmetic
> >> matters are appropriate to save for whenever we need to do this
> again.
> >>
> >> One lesson: Localizations should not hold up release in the future.
> >> Localizations not available during the initial dev QA and review
> period
> >> should not stop the train.  Supplemental localizations are always
> >> possible.  That will likely always be the case when a hotfix is made
> >> available along with an initial vulnerability disclosure and
> advisory.
> >>
> >>   - Dennis
> >>
> > [ ... ]
> 
> -
> 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: [REPORT] CVE-2016-1513 Security Advisory

2016-08-30 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
[BCC PMC]

Today, Version 2.0 of the Advisory for CVE-2016-1513 has been issued.

There is now general availability of a Hotfix that can be downloaded and 
applied to installations of Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2.  The Hotfix details can be 
found at 
<http://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/hotfix.html>.

Please review the README instructions before deciding to download and apply the 
Hotfix.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 09:43
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: [REPORT] CVE-2016-1513 Security Advisory
> 
> [BCC AOO Users; BCC AOO PMC]
> 
> Today, advisory CVE-2016-1513 has been published with regard to
> disclosure of a potentially-exploitable defect in crafted Impress
> documents.  The advisory can be found at
> <http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2016-1513.html>.
> 
> There is no updated release at this time.  There is action underway.  We
> can now discuss those actions and also seek assistance in the wider
> community.
> 
[ ... ]


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



[PROBLEM] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

2016-08-29 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
There is a problem with the README files for Windows not being populated to 
archive.apache.org.  

I suspect it has to do with the file name beginning with README, since the 
files such as Linux32.README.txt populated to the archive area just fine.

To rename the files everywhere is going to be a serious regression risk.

Instead, I am going to copy the three Windows README files (en-US, de, and nl) 
to openoffice.org in the folder for security bulletins.  They will be linked to 
directly from hotfix.html.

The hotfix.html file will be updated to locate those README files in that 
location once they are present.

Then I will complete this long and winding road with the updated advisory.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 10:28
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Cc: l...@openoffice.apache.org; q...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-
> patch1 Hotfixes
> 
> [BCC to PMC, FYI to L10N and QA.]
> 
> The 4.2.1-patch1 release repository is now populated with the only
> localizations that we have: English (en-US) and German (de) for all
> platforms plus the additional Nederland (nl) for Windows.  The
> localizations took until yesterday, 2016-08-25, to be completed.
> 
> Propagation to the archive site has begun and will probably not be
> complete for another 24 hours.  Meanwhile, an updated CVE-2016-1513 will
> be prepared.  The update will be posted when the archive is stable,
> along with notification to dev@ and users@.  Those actions will provide
> the general availability of the Hotfix.
> 
> While minor blemishes may remain, this material will be kept stable as
> is unless a serious defect is brought to our attention.  Cosmetic
> matters are appropriate to save for whenever we need to do this again.
> 
> One lesson: Localizations should not hold up release in the future.
> Localizations not available during the initial dev QA and review period
> should not stop the train.  Supplemental localizations are always
> possible.  That will likely always be the case when a hotfix is made
> available along with an initial vulnerability disclosure and advisory.
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
[ ... ]


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



RE: Java 32 Redux

2016-08-28 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
There's also a proposal to rework the error messages.  I started over a year 
ago, and was flummoxes on not wanting there to be multiple warnings in the same 
message (having to do with how exception messages are combined).  It would be 
worth getting back to for 4.2.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:ksch...@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 16:07
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Java 32 Redux
> 
> 
> 
> On 01/08/2015 03:36 PM, V Stuart Foote wrote:
> >> I've added a background color and icon. The text was also
> >
> > It certainly won't be missed now...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> No, it won't. It seems using a 32-bit Java on a 64-bit Windows
> environment continues to be a source of frustration for end users.
> 
> We'll be changing System Requirements generally for 4.2. But, meanwhile,
> could this lovely message box be added as a second paragraph to the
> current System Requirements page?
> 
> http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs_aoo41.html
> 
> On another related thread, Juergen had suggested an added parameter of
> -d32 to run the 64 bit Java in 32 bit mode. Unfortunately this only
> applies to *nix variants and maybe(?) MacOSX. Windows doesn't have it.
> it's too bad, because it certainly would be an easy fix.
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Kay Schenk
> Apache OpenOffice
> 
> "Things work out best for those who make
>  the best of the way things work out."
>  -- John Wooden
> 
> -
> 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] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

2016-08-26 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
[BCC to PMC, FYI to L10N and QA.]

The 4.2.1-patch1 release repository is now populated with the only 
localizations that we have: English (en-US) and German (de) for all platforms 
plus the additional Nederland (nl) for Windows.  The localizations took until 
yesterday, 2016-08-25, to be completed.

Propagation to the archive site has begun and will probably not be complete for 
another 24 hours.  Meanwhile, an updated CVE-2016-1513 will be prepared.  The 
update will be posted when the archive is stable, along with notification to 
dev@ and users@.  Those actions will provide the general availability of the 
Hotfix.

While minor blemishes may remain, this material will be kept stable as is 
unless a serious defect is brought to our attention.  Cosmetic matters are 
appropriate to save for whenever we need to do this again.

One lesson: Localizations should not hold up release in the future.  
Localizations not available during the initial dev QA and review period should 
not stop the train.  Supplemental localizations are always possible.  That will 
likely always be the case when a hotfix is made available along with an initial 
vulnerability disclosure and advisory.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 15:02
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-
> patch1 Hotfixes
> 
> [BCC PMC, FYI QA]
> 
> At this time, the preparation and dev@/qa@ confirmation of the AOO
> 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes has quieted.
> 
> I propose that the current binaries be placed into general availability.
> I am initiating lazy consensus to end not before Tuesday, 2016-08-
> 23T22:00Z.
> 
> MATERIALS TO BE AVAILABLE
> 
>  * The file hotfix.html at
><https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/>
>will be made available at
><https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/>
> 
>  * The directory folder
><https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/binaries/>
>will be made available as a subdirectory of
><https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/>.
> 
> ANNOUNCEMENT OF AVAILABILITY
> 
>   * The CVE-2016-1513 advisory,
> <http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2016-1513.html>,
> will be reissued to include availability of the hotfix and
> refer users to the hotfix.html page in the archive 4.1.2-patch1
> location.
> 
>   * There will be an accompanying announcement on dev@, users@,
> and in the two bugzilla issues related to the defect that the
> hotfix applies to.
> 
> WHAT TO REVIEW
> 
> You can find everything to be made available by starting with the
> hotfix.html page at
> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/hotfix.html>.
> 
> IGNORE the Source column.  The source release has already occurred, and
> those links will not be valid until deployment of hotfix.html to the
> archive location.
> 
> The README files are the next materials to examine.  There you can learn
> more about the hotfix for each of the four platforms: Windows, MacOSX,
> Linux32, and Linux64.  Follow any of the procedures that you want to
> verify.
> 
> 
>  - Dennis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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: svn commit: r14987 - /dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/hotfix.html

2016-08-25 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
Oh, OK.  Seems wordy for me.  But +0. 

I very much don't like the wide gray bar when a simple double-line is good 
enough.

When I update the language entries for Linux, I will remove the gray bar.  It 
is awful.

 - Dennis

> -Original Message-
> From: mar...@apache.org [mailto:mar...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 14:46
> To: comm...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r14987 - /dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/hotfix.html
> 
> Author: marcus
> Date: Thu Aug 25 21:45:41 2016
> New Revision: 14987
> 
> Log:
> Changed the download link names to a more language-general one
> 
> Modified:
> dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/hotfix.html
> 
[ ... ]



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



RE: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

2016-08-25 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 11:37
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-
> patch1 Hotfixes
> 
> Am 08/25/2016 06:43 PM, schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
> >> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> >
> >> Yes, now I understand.
> >>
> >> Is it better now?
> >
> > _imho_ yes.
> 
> I've merged both tables into a single one. Now we have really one style.
> 
> Furthermore, I've added also a note that the hotfix is *not* depended on
> the language. IMHO this is important to know for the users.
> 
[orcmid] 

+1 on both


> 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: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

2016-08-25 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:joe...@j-m-schmidt.de]
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 01:47
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
> Cc: q...@openoffice.apache.org; l...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-
> patch1 Hotfixes
> 
[ ... ]
> The design of the site
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/hotfix.html is very confusing.
> 
> By this I mean the current labeling of table headers and the first
> column, are in the 2 tables reversed.
> 
> Can we use a uniform table:
> 
> Operating System | Language| Instructions | Download |
> Signature | Digital Hashes
> MS Windows   | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...
> |
>  | Nederland (nl) Dutch| ...  | ...  | ...
> |
>  | Germany (de) German | ...  | ...  | ...
> |
> MacOS X  | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...
> |
> Linux 32-bit | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...
> |
> Linux 64-bit | English (en-US) | ...  | ...  | ...
> |
> 
[orcmid] 

This will not work.  Only for Windows does each language have a separate .zip.

For MacOSX and the Linux packages, there are multiple README files but only one 
.zip per platform. (All versions of the README are in the single Zip.)

The difference is that each Windows Zip contains localized scripts in the same 
language as the README.
There are no localized scripts for the other platforms.

See how that looks now at 
.

> 
> 
> I wanted to make the changes itself, but I can not access the CMS, I do
> not know why.
[orcmid] 

I am not certain what you were attempting to do.  The dev area is not under the 
CMS.  It is not part of the web site.

In any case, please don't change hotfix.html.  It is already being updated for 
the localizations that are now available.

All of your suggestions are valuable.  Thank you for pointing this out.
> 
> 
> 
> 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: [DISCUSS] Release 4.2: General Topics

2016-08-24 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
The problem of incomplete shutdown is very serious.  It can result in damaged 
and completely lost in-progress work, even though apparently saved, and other 
damage.  The whole problem of shutdown, Quickstarter, and failed auto-recovery 
is a big ball of snakes that is worthy of a maintenance release all on its own.

With regard to spell-checking, the usual symptom is that suddenly all words are 
redlined.  Having it stop checking probably goes unnoticed more often, as it 
did for Don.

With regard to spell-checking, there is a promise to provide a profile-fix tool 
for Windows, 
.  That is a bit buried 
(but look at the issue it is tied to). 

I will open a separate task for this now.

At some point, installation of such a tool should at least be part of the built 
distribution.

So there are three steps:

 1. Get the tool out there as something users can install and use.

 2. Incorporate the tool in our binary distributions.

 3. Fix the shut-down problems we have that are so overwhelming and so damaging 
to the work of our users.

Steps (1) will require QA work and L10N work in order to reach the greatest 
number of users.  English will only work for 45% of our users.  It should work 
better for end users than the instructions that are being provided repetitively 
each time someone stumbles on this and manages to report it.   

This is clearly a triage situation.  We need something now, we need something 
about best practices, such as having Quickstarter OFF by default at least on 
Windows, and also doing something about auto-recovery failures.  And we can't 
wait for laborious software fixes for which there is no foreseeable developer 
availability and then production of subsequent full-binary distributions.

Speaking of triage, the targeting of Windows reaches 87% of our users based on 
platform downloads.  Remedies there are assisted by the fact that cmd.exe (the 
console processor) and command-line utilities are available on all versions of 
Windows that AOO supports.  In addition, every install of AOO includes a 
functional version of Python in the OpenOffice 4 code.  Accomplishing the 
provision of side-car utilities for other platforms will depend on committers 
who are devoted to those platforms stepping forward.

 - Dennis

PS: The 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfix will roll to general distribution in the next 24-48 
hours.  We have English language covered and there is provision for more L10N 
localization.  However, the only one completed at this time is Nederland (nl, 
Dutch) for the Windows version.  A Deutsch (de, German) one is in the works.  
To get better coverage, the priority additional L10N-s should be French, 
Italian, and Spanish.  That gets us to 75% of the users by downloaded 
languages.  To get to 90% add Japanese, Russian, Polish, (Dutch), and 
Portuguese.  Chinese would be a great bonus and, of course, we would appreciate 
any other localizations that AOO enthusiasts and committers provide. 

> -Original Message-
> From: Don Lewis [mailto:truck...@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 00:38
> To: ofarr...@iol.ie
> Cc: dev@openoffice.apache.org; q...@openoffice.apache.org;
> l...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.2: General Topics
> 
> On 24 Aug, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
> > Don Lewis  wrote:
> 
> >> Someone should fix the broken spellcheck problem.  It generates a lot
> of
> >> complaints from our users.
> >>
> >
> > The "broken spellcheck problem" seems largely to be caused by over
> hasty close-down of the computer before cached files (both hardware and
> software caches) are properly written to disk.  User education is the
> answer - educate them to be patient in closedown and wait for disk
> activity to finish before power-off.
> 
> Maybe using fsync() to flush things out faster when shutting down the
> app and keeping a backup copy of the config would help avoid the
> problem.   We shouldn't just silently fail when something is corrupt.
> 
> I've even experienced this myself on my FreeBSD desktop which stays on
> 24x7 and has an UPS.  It took me quite a while to notice spellcheck
> wasn't working.  I just thought my spelling was unusually good ;-)
> 
> 
> -
> 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: FW: Internationalization of 4.1.2-patch1 (was RE: a question about "APPLY-4.1.2-patch1.bat")

2016-08-22 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
[Please cross-post all replies]

Two localizations for the 4.1.2-patch1 hotfix are near completion.  

   They are for German (de) and Nederlands (nl) (often "Dutch" in English). 

It would be very useful to have localizations in French, Italian, and Spanish, 
preferably by native speakers.

NAMING THE FILES

Unfortunately, the English-language README and the download file have no 
language suffix.  They are

README-4.1.2-patch1-Windows.txt
and apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-Win_x86.zip

Also, the install and uninstall script names do not reflect their language:

APPLY-4.1.2-patch1.bat
and REVERT-4.1.2-patch1.bat

LOCALIZED NAMING

For the additional localizations, language suffixes are proposed to an aid in 
multilingual situations and to prevent name collisions.  With suffixes, the 
relevant names would become (using German for example),

  README-4.1.2-patch1-Windows-de.txt
  Apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-Win_x86_de.zip
  APPLY-4.1.2-patch1_de.bat
  REVERT-4.1.2-patch1_de.bat

In reviewing the localizations, I will adjust these as needed.

 - Dennis



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



RE: Support contact for Extensions

2016-08-22 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
OK, +1

> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 04:28
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Support contact for Extensions
> 
> On 21/08/2016 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> >> From: Andrea Pescetti
> >> My proposal: use a link "Apache OpenOffice dev list" as a
> replacement,
> >> linking it to
> >> https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html#development-mailing-
> >> list-public
> >> ; and if/when we get an e-mail related to hosting of the Extensions
> >> site, we reply CCing the communityteam address so that they can
> handle
> >> it.
[orcmid] 

I think it would be better to use us...@openoffice.apache.org and not put users 
through so many steps.

Also, I think the moderators should be generous in accepting user requests to 
either list and  not put them through too many steps, especially when they have 
done their best to express their request in English.


> >
> > So we should CC communityteam@... if it is actually something that
> only they can handle?
> 
> Exactly. This is how it should work in theory (i.e., they should be
> contacted for hosting problems only), but apparently they are currently
> overwhelmed by misplaced OpenOffice support requests that they are no
> longer able to handle.
> 
> 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



Internationalization of 4.1.2-patch1 (was RE: a question about "APPLY-4.1.2-patch1.bat")

2016-08-20 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
All of the information on the release of 4.1.2-patch1, including readmes and 
messages from the patch install and uninstall scripts, is in English.  See 
 
and the Readme files.  Also, the Windows package contains install and uninstall 
scripts that provide messages in English.

It would be useful for there to be internationalization of the texts and 
messages, especially for the Windows version.

If the proportion of languages chosen for downloads is an useful guide,

English language is selected for over 40% of downloads.

If French, German, Italian, and Spanish were also supported, then a total of 
75% of all downloads would be covered.

To reach 90%, add Japanese, Russian, Polish, Dutch, and Portuguese (BR).

Supplementing the 4.1.2-patch1 files in this manner is possible, if committers 
are willing to provide translations.  To submit a translation for the Windows 
case, we need a translation of the README and of the text messages presented by 
the APPLY and REVERT scripts in the Zip for Windows.  These must be supplied by 
an OpenOffice committer who can provide a PGP signature on their submission, or 
they must be submitted to the project and a committer familiar with the 
language accepts them.

 - Dennis

PS: This does not impact the placing of the current packages into general 
distribution.  Additional languages can be provided in supplemental 
distributions.

PPS: This is also an area of "Help Wanted" that would be valuable in support of 
the project.
   

> -Original Message-
> From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:joe...@j-m-schmidt.de]
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 01:53
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: a question about "APPLY-4.1.2-patch1.bat"
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Maybe, i would like to create a German-annotated version of patch, 


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



RE: a question about "APPLY-4.1.2-patch1.bat"

2016-08-20 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 09:09
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: a question about "APPLY-4.1.2-patch1.bat"
> 
> Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 *does* *not* install hwp.dll.  It should not be
> there.
> 
> That is one of the ways that we can determine that the patch is likely
> being applied to 4.1.2 and not an incorrect version.  hwp.dll was
> removed as part of the resolution of CVE-2015-1774,
> <http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2015-1774.html>.
> 
> If your version of 4.1.2 was obtained from the openoffice.org download
> page, it is safe to delete hwp.dll.  If it has an earlier date than
> other files (such as tl.dll), that means it is probably left-over from
> the install of an earlier AOO version.
[orcmid] 

I had a machine with AOO 4.1.1 installed.  It still had hwp.dll installed.  
That hwp.dll file was dated 2014-08-03.  I installed AOO 4.1.2 en-US (from the 
official archive) on Windows 10 and the file hwp.dll is no longer there.  The 
install did not retain any of the AOO 4.1.1 files.

If there is an hwp.dll in the project-distributed AOO 4.1.2 German Language 
version, there is a problem.

Please confirm that your hwp.dll was not installed by AOO 4.1.2 (which has 
files dated 2015-10-21).

 - Dennis
[ ... ]
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:joe...@j-m-schmidt.de]
> > Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 01:53
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: a question about "APPLY-4.1.2-patch1.bat"
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Maybe, i would like to create a German-annotated version of patch, but
> I
> > do not understand a line of APPLY-4.1.2-patch1.bat.
> >
> > What is the purpose of line:
> > IF EXIST "%AOOPATCH%\hwp.dll" GOTO :FAIL2
> >
> >
> > I have an original version of AOO installed 4.1.2 and there is hwp.dll
> > exists. But that does that the script terminates without the patch to
> > install.
> >
> > Is that on purpose? Or I do not understand the technical background?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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


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



RE: a question about "APPLY-4.1.2-patch1.bat"

2016-08-20 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
Apache OpenOffice 4.1.2 *does* *not* install hwp.dll.  It should not be there.  

That is one of the ways that we can determine that the patch is likely being 
applied to 4.1.2 and not an incorrect version.  hwp.dll was removed as part of 
the resolution of CVE-2015-1774, 
.

If your version of 4.1.2 was obtained from the openoffice.org download page, it 
is safe to delete hwp.dll.  If it has an earlier date than other files (such as 
tl.dll), that means it is probably left-over from the install of an earlier AOO 
version.

Please confirm if that is the case.

 - Dennis



> -Original Message-
> From: Jörg Schmidt [mailto:joe...@j-m-schmidt.de]
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 01:53
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: a question about "APPLY-4.1.2-patch1.bat"
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Maybe, i would like to create a German-annotated version of patch, but I
> do not understand a line of APPLY-4.1.2-patch1.bat.
> 
> What is the purpose of line:
> IF EXIST "%AOOPATCH%\hwp.dll" GOTO :FAIL2
> 
> 
> I have an original version of AOO installed 4.1.2 and there is hwp.dll
> exists. But that does that the script terminates without the patch to
> install.
> 
> Is that on purpose? Or I do not understand the technical background?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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



[PROPOSAL] General Availability of ApacheOpenOffice 4.1.2-patch1 Hotfixes

2016-08-19 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
[BCC PMC, FYI QA]

At this time, the preparation and dev@/qa@ confirmation of the AOO 4.1.2-patch1 
Hotfixes has quieted.

I propose that the current binaries be placed into general availability.  I am 
initiating lazy consensus to end not before Tuesday, 2016-08-23T22:00Z. 

MATERIALS TO BE AVAILABLE

 * The file hotfix.html at 
   
   will be made available at 
   

 * The directory folder 
   
   will be made available as a subdirectory of 
   .

ANNOUNCEMENT OF AVAILABILITY

  * The CVE-2016-1513 advisory, 
,
will be reissued to include availability of the hotfix and 
refer users to the hotfix.html page in the archive 4.1.2-patch1
location.

  * There will be an accompanying announcement on dev@, users@,
and in the two bugzilla issues related to the defect that the
hotfix applies to.

WHAT TO REVIEW

You can find everything to be made available by starting with the hotfix.html 
page at 
.

IGNORE the Source column.  The source release has already occurred, and those 
links will not be valid until deployment of hotfix.html to the archive location.

The README files are the next materials to examine.  There you can learn more 
about the hotfix for each of the four platforms: Windows, MacOSX, Linux32, and 
Linux64.  Follow any of the procedures that you want to verify.


 - Dennis

   







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



RE: svn commit: r1756954 [1/2] - in /openoffice/trunk/main: ./ openssl/

2016-08-19 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
Great commit messages!

> -Original Message-
> From: truck...@apache.org [mailto:truck...@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 11:28
> To: comm...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r1756954 [1/2] - in /openoffice/trunk/main: ./
> openssl/
> 
> Author: truckman
> Date: Fri Aug 19 18:28:06 2016
> New Revision: 1756954
> 
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1756954=rev
> Log:
> Update the bundled version of OpenSSL from 0.9.8zh to 1.0.2h which
> fixes many vulnerabiliies and adds support for newer, more secure
> ciphers and versions of the protocol.
> 
> Note: OpenSSL version 1.0.2h contains two known minor vulnerabilites,
> CVE-2016-2177 and CVE-2016-2178, which will be fixed in the next
> OpenSSL release.  Their potential impact is low enough that that
> various Linux distros have chosen not to apply the upstream patches
> to the versions that they distribute.
> 
> On Windows, there is an optional new dependency on NASM,
> .  If NASM is not available, then the C
> implementations of the low-level crypto code will be used instead
> of the optimized assembly language versions.  Since OpenOffice is
> not a heavy user of this code, the impact should be minor.  If NASM
> is installed, but its location is not in $PATH, the directory
> containing nasm.exe should be passed to configure using --with-nasm-
> home.
> 
[ ... ]
[orcmid] 

Does the NASM code do the right thing with regard to CPU model detection?  It 
sounds like there may be dependencies on instructions that may not be on all 
processors for which Apache OpenOffice is supported.  I am thinking in 
particular about processors on which Windows XP will run but Windows 7 and 
later will not because of hardware protection requirements and, I suspect, 
extended instruction sets.



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



RE: Ready to setup release build machines?

2016-08-19 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 09:09
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Ready to setup release build machines?
> 
> 
> 
> On 08/12/2016 12:22 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > I thought that the basic requirement is that the release manager(s) do
> any builds on a machine under their [exclusive] individual control.
> That also means satisfying baseline requirements for release builds
> though.  That pretty much requires use of a VM if the main development
> system of a release manager is aligned with different tools and
> dependencies.
> 
> I don't find any requirement like this vis a vis building by the release
> manager per se. The release is voted on by the community. So, in a
> sense, building/testing is the responsibility of all who vote on a
> release.
> 
> See: www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html
[orcmid] 

That page is rather obsolete.  For example, we have two branches on 
dist.apache.org, one of which is for dev (and where we put release candidates) 
and the other is release where we move any approved candidates.  The dist ... 
release contents are automatically mirrored to archive.apache.org which seems 
to be the proper place to refer to these (although there is mirroring to 
consider, but not for 4.1.2-patch1).

The release page does not address binaries.  I saw the business about where 
official binaries are to be built somewhere and must find it.

Since we put binaries through a form of this process (usually concurrently) 
there does need to be some sort of provenance on those binaries.


> 
> >
> > I am not so certain about putting up shared release-build VMs on non-
> ASF infrastructure though.
> 
> Our "official", "required" release artifact is the source code for a
> release.
> 
> >
> > One advantage to using ASF infrastructure is to bring code signing
> into the fold.  That seems rather important down the road.
> 
> We have been signing ALL release artifacts -- including all the binaries
> -- since AOO 3.4. So code signing of everything we release is already
> part of this process.
[orcmid] 

The use of PGP signatures on our release artifacts is a different matter than 
code signing that is recognized by the operating system and is part of the 
installer, not a detached signature that users must check manually.  The 
signatures I meant are *embedded* in the artifacts, including .msi, .dll, and 
.exe files.

I was thinking of this form of signed installs.  That is a big deal for 
Windows, where the OS will check them automatically, and they are also reported 
in the Properties for the signed artifact.  It also applies to all of the DLLs 
and such that are loaded with the install.  I believe that Andrea has the 
private key that was issued for that but we have not managed to use it to sign 
the code.  This is usually done as part of building distributable binaries.

That private key is precious and is not to be shared.  Ideally, it would belong 
to root@ but I don't think we have a process for that.  

 
> 
> We require a production environment accessible by the release manager
> and helpers because producing distribution binaries in another location
> (seperate developer machine), signing and then uploading ALL the
> binaries to SourceForce by individuals is a horrendous undertaking.
> Ariel Constenla-Haile provided binaries for the 3.4 release and I'm sure
> he can attest to this. If we can set up a production environment under
> ASF infrastructure, of course this would be ideal. But, I see no reason
> why this environment couldn't have shell access by AOO developers who
> are likely to do code signing.
> 
> 
[ ... ]


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



RE: [PATCH DOWNLOAD] Draft for the hotfix webpage

2016-08-18 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 14:40
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH DOWNLOAD] Draft for the hotfix webpage
> 
> Am 08/15/2016 11:40 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> >> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 13:43
> >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH DOWNLOAD] Draft for the hotfix webpage
> >>
> >> Am 08/15/2016 09:10 PM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> >>>
> >>>> -Original Message-
> >>>> From: Kay sch...@apache.org [mailto:ksch...@apache.org]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 08:59
> >>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH DOWNLOAD] Draft for the hotfix webpage
> >>>>
> >>>> On 08/13/2016 02:16 PM, Marcus wrote:
> >>>>> As we have now the patched library file and Readme for all
> >> platforms,
> >>>>> IMHO not much more is needed to go public with the hotfix.
> Therefore
> >>>>> I've created a draft version of the hotfix download webpage:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> >>>> patch1/hotfix.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please review and tell me your feedback.
> >>> [orcmid]
> >>>
> >>> I have a number of items.  I can fix the URLs in (2) below after I
> >> have updated the Windows set.
> >>>
> >>> 1. This is worded as if it is the advisory.  I assume this is,
> >> rather, something that should be linked to from an update of the
> >> advisory.  I request that it be a description of the HotFix.  It
> could
> >> link to the advisory, of course.  RECOMMENDATION: Have the emphasis
> be
> >> on this describing release of the hotfix for CVE-2016-1513.
> >>
> >> OK, seems indeed not clear enough.
> >>
> >>> 2. Download and Installation.  Currently, this page is at
> >>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> >> patch1/hotfix.html>.  It has *ABSOLUTE* URLs to the binaries and
> source
> >> and the various hashes.  WHEN GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OCCURS, this page
> and
> >> all of the binaries and source pages will be at
> >>> <https://archive.apache.org/dist/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1>.
> >>
> >> Please remember that it's just a draft of what is available at the
> >> moment. ;-) That's why the URLs for source and binaries differ
> already.
> >> Of course all URLs will change when everything is available at dist/
> and
> >> no longer dev/.
> >>
> >> RECOMMENDATION: In the Download&   Installation table, make all URLS
> >> *RELATIVE* to the HotFix page, since when it is staged to release and
> >> then to archive, the links will always work.
> >>>NOTE. When we make general distribution, we stage the HotFix
> >> HTML page and the binaries subfolder to
> >>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1>
> >> using SVN copies.  In 24-48 hours or so that material will show up
> >> automatically on archive.apache.org and we can make the general
> >> distribution announcement.  The dist.apache.org materials can be
> removed
> >> when that happens.  WARNING. The Windows material is not ready, and
> some
> >> renaming will happen.  That should all be done by the end of Tuesday
> >> (GMT).
> >>
> >> The current location of the hotfix webpage is of course is not the
> final
> >> one. It will be there where the other webpages are: at w.oo.o.
> >>
> >> I've just put it into SVN to have it not yet on the public OO
> website.
> > [orcmid]
> >
> > LOL.  I thought that is where you wanted to keep it [;<).  Because it
> is so specific to this HotFix, I think it would be great to leave it
> with the downloads and the archive.apache.org site, but link to it from
> openoffice.org.
> >
> >>
> >>> 3. Next Step under Download and Installation.  The README for
> >> Windows addresses the way to Unzip and provides important information
> >> about how the extract is into a folder of a default-determined name.
> I
> >> don't know if the others provide comparable information and/or
> operating
> >> from a terminal is assu

RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

2016-08-18 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 14:46
> To: q...@openoffice.apache.org; dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
[ ... ]
> [knmc]
> As we move forward to a general distribution here  is an odt revision of
> the readme that can be used to generate an html, pdf, or text versions.
> All versions are attached but may not come through to the list. They can
> all be accessed from the following link.
> 
> All feedback is both welcomed and encouraged.
[orcmid] 

The .odt and the .txt file come through as attachments.

Do you have specific recommendations about what should be done with these?  

I notice that there are problems with the .txt file layout not having hard line 
breaks.  The name changes and dates in 0.2.0 are not reflected.  The .odt also 
needs layout work.  There's too much white space and I have not looked closely 
enough to figure out why.

I know we differ on formatting and some document organization matters.  I am 
not going to address them at this point.

I am going to 1.0.0 now, essentially with the 0.2.0 except for the change of 
version number and removal of the limitation to testing use.  I did the other 
repair you suggested.  I think Marcus is ready on the other binaries, so 
something will happen tomorrow (Friday).  

I'm not certain what the final inch is just yet, but it looks like everything 
is ready enough.

 - Dennis
> 
> regards
> Keith
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >



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



RE: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows

2016-08-15 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton


> -Original Message-
> From: Keith N. McKenna [mailto:keith.mcke...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 21:05
> To: q...@openoffice.apache.org; dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [TESTING] Applying openoffice-4.1.2-patch1 for Windows
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > BETA 0.2.0 IS NOW AVAILABLE
> >
> > This is a cleanup version.  It is hoped that this will be the last
> change before bumping the version to 1.0.0 and making general
> availability.
> >
> > One important change:
> >
> > The names of the files have been changed.
> >
> > The README is now named README-4.1.2-patch1-Windows.txt.
> >
> > The zip and the related .asc, .md5, .sha1, and .sha256 files all
> have the base name
> > apache-openoffice-4.1.2-patch1-Win_x86.zip
> >
> > The two scripts also have simpler names:
> >
> > APPLY-4.1.2-patch1.bat
> > REVERT-4.1.2-patch1.bat
> >
> > The files are still available at
> >
> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-
> patch1/Windows>
> [knmc]
> the link should read
> <
[orcmid] 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openoffice/4.1.2-patch1/binaries/Windows/>
[orcmid] 

Right you are.  Thanks for the quick check.
> 
> Regards
> Keith
> >
> > Now it is worth testing enough to know there is no regression and that
> APPLY and REVERT operate properly as before.
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
[ ... ]



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



  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >