Fwd: 300 Million Downloads of Apache OpenOffice(R)

2020-11-02 Thread Rob Weir
Congratulations on 300 million downloads. That is quite an accomplishment.

But do you have a Klingon translation yet? ;-)

-Rob

-- Forwarded message -
From: Marcus 
Date: Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 6:04 PM
Subject: 300 Million Downloads of Apache OpenOffice®
To: 


[this announcement is available online at
https://s.apache.org/300-millions-aoo]

300 Million Downloads of Apache OpenOffice®

With great pleasure we have seen that Apache OpenOffice® was downloaded
more than 300 million times from 2011 until now, October 24th. Here
included are more than 200 million downloads of all releases in the
4.1.x branch. This was reached with our partner SourceForge.net.

Of course there are some other ways like alternative servers hosted by
Apache itself. So, actually we don't know these numbers but it is for
sure that we are already a lot above the 300 million downloads line. And
when we include also the copies on CDs and DVDs then we can add another
big number on top.

Currently we are very busy with baking our next release: Apache
OpenOffice 4.1.8. Nevertheless, it is worth taking a few minutes to
celebrate this milestone.

For some detailed statistics please see the blog post at:
https://s.apache.org/300-millions-aoo


Re: [Google+] Administration?

2016-11-09 Thread Rob Weir
The Google+ page currently has 1 owner (me) and 4 managers:  Chao Huang,
Donald Harbison, Jürgen Schmidt, and Samer Mansour.

I'd recommend the PMC designate at least one new owner who can then clean
up the access control list.   To add a new owner I'd need to know the
person's Google login ID (the email address they use for logging into
Google services).

Regards,

-Rob


On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile 
wrote:

> 
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Subject: Re: [Google+] Administration?
> Reply-To:
> In-Reply-To: <3611c4b5-a47b-775d-2c00-544128024...@hamburg.de>
>
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 12:21:36AM +0100, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> > Maybe Infra can help here?!
>
> This king of stuff is responsibility of the PMC, on our records the
> owner of https://plus.google.com/+openoffice is TBD.
>
> IIRC Rob was managing that account.
>
> @Rob: any idea about this?
>
>
> > Am 23.10.2016 um 03:06 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> > > Anything new on Google+ ?
> > >
> > > https://plus.google.com/u/0/+openoffice/posts
> > >
> > > As this is a so-called Brand-Account on Google+, AOO (as the owner) can
> > > give other users (like me) administrative rights. At any time AOO can
> > > withdraw these rights again.
> > >
> > > Therefore I would volunteer to do some basic changes, e.g. replacing
> the
> > > outdated background graphic, posting the official announcement/release
> > > notes for 4.1.3. etc.
> > >
> > > There are over 8.000 followers. I don't know how many of them are still
> > > active but it would be a start...
> > >
> > > regards, Matthias
> > >
> > > P.S.: From 18.-20.11.2016 I am at the UbuCon Europe
> > > (http://ubucon.org/en/events/ubucon-europe/) in Essen/Germany.
> > > If someone wants to have a talk/beer?! ;-)
>
>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina
>


Re: [REPORT] Issue Clearance Quality + Technical Debt

2016-01-17 Thread Rob Weir
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> [BCC to Project Management Committee and users@ oo.a.o]
>
> SUMMARY
>
> The top-level analysis of Bugzilla issue handling has been completed for all 
> issues opened on the project through December 31, 2015.
>
> The complete tabulation is in the PDF document at .
>
> It remains the case that since the establishment of Apache OpenOffice as an 
> ASF Top Level Project in November, 2012, the accrual of unresolved issues 
> exceeds 40%.  That is, for every 100 new issues, on the average more than 40 
> of them will be unresolved indefinitely.
>
> In contrast, although there is a very large number of unresolved issues that 
> remain in the Bugzilla from its history as part of OpenOffice.org, that 
> previous technical debt was, proportionally, under 20%.
>

It is entirely unfounded to equate unresolved "issues" in Bugzilla
with "technical debt." When I was "leading" a group of QA volunteers a
few years ago to resolve BZ issues it was clear that only a small
percentage of them were actual reports of new bugs in the product.  A
very small fraction.  Most of them fit into other categories:

1) Questions on how to use to product, or misunderstandings about how
the product worked.

2) General system-wide issues and user was reaching out to us for free
computer technical support.

3) Redundant reports of already known bugs or already requested enhancements,

4) Vague reports which could not be reproduced and which the original
submitter was unresponsive to requests for clarification.

At that time we reduced these numbers by quite a bit.  But note that
this was done without changing a single line of code.  It was a paper
exercise of reducing the of open BZ issues only.   If closing BZ
issues in these categories does not magically improve product quality,
hopefully you can see how not closing such issues (due to less
organization in the QA activity) does not magically decrease product
quality, or technical debt for that matter.

Anyone familiar with the discipline of SQE understands that the
meaningful comparison can only be done after triaging issues,
eliminating those that are not reporting bugs, deduplicating bug
reports and attempting to confirm them.   That might indicate
"technical debt".  But what you're reporting is not that, but "bug
triaging debt" if you feel the need to give it a label.  This
distinction is important.

Regards,

-Rob



> Some highlights:
>
>  * Even though the monthly rate of new issues and comments on issues has been 
> decreasing significantly since mid-2014, the rate of technical debt as the 
> proportion of unresolved issues has not improved.
>
>  * Although a reduction to 35% unresolved-issue is seen in the last 5 months 
> of 2015, this may be distorted by issues created and then resolved in the 
> staging of AOO 4.1.2 release candidates and QA on the candidates.  Results 
> for the first-quarter of 2016 are needed to determine if this is a new trend 
> or a hiccup.
>
> DETAIL AND QUALITY MATTERS
>
> This is a rough analysis, although the consistent trend is difficult to 
> explain away.
>
> Refinement requires a closer look at the nature of issues and understanding 
> of exactly what resolution means, not just what being left unresolved means.
>
> There is also a suspected disconnect with regard to what is considered an 
> issue and how the ways of closing an issue are actually applied.
>
>  * Closing of a new issue as a duplicate qualifies as a resolution.  The 
> incidence of long-standing issues that continue to receive duplicate reports 
> is useful to understand in this case, and that requires more detail.
>
>  * Some issues are closed as Resolved Fixed when the fact of the matter is 
> that there was insufficient detail to understand and confirm the issue and 
> the reporting party failed to provide additional information (if it was even 
> requested).
>
>  * Some comments on issues tailgate possibly-different problems onto known 
> ones, although the resemblance may be superficial and the issues need to be 
> split.
>
>  * Enhancement/feature requests are not distinguished.
>
>  * Resolved issues are sometimes closed without obtaining confirmation that 
> incorporation of the identified resolution in distributed code actually 
> addresses the originally-reported difficulty.
>
>  * Some issue reports are closed as not issues because they are declared user 
> problems and kicked to the Community Forum.
>
> These may all have small effects.  We will know only by looking more closely 
> into Bugzilla details.
>
> The last case deserves more careful attention.
>
> The next-in-line users of Apache OpenOffice distributions consist of around 
> 50 million users who are mainly individuals and 87% of whom are using 
> Microsoft Windows.  Such casual users, whatever their limited experience in 
> trouble-shooting and describing problems, are the main users of this 
> software.  The 

Re: [REPORT] Issue Clearance Quality + Technical Debt

2016-01-17 Thread Rob Weir
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> wrote:
> FYI, the searches I've done for unresolved issues excludes all issues that 
> have been identified as duplicates and those having any form of resolution, 
> including being closed.  It does not distinguish between unresolved extension 
> requests and defect reports, and between unresolved confirmed and unconfirmed 
> incident reports.
>

The point, of course, is that we once make deliberate efforts to
identify duplicates, support questions, etc., and mark them
accordingly, an effort that is not occurring to the same degree today.
So your numbers are conflating this difference in BZ processing with a
difference in the product quality, which is inaccurate and unfair.

-Rob


> Agreed, finer-grained analysis can provide some clarity on this, and it will 
> be interesting how much noise happens to be removed.
>
> Of course, technical debt can be more than known and uncorrected bugs in the 
> code.  It has more forms and symptoms, some of which are reflected in bug 
> reports of a different nature.
>
> For those playing along at home, what I have relied on in my use of the 
> *metaphorical* term, "technical debt":
>
>  Martin Fowler.  Technical Debt Quadrant.  Web site article, 2009-10-14.  
> Available at
>  <http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TechnicalDebtQuadrant.html>
>  and the earlier paper linked there.
>
> I use the open bugs as an indicator of technical debt.  Whether it is a very 
> good one or not is a different matter.  It strikes me that digging deeper is 
> the avenue to clarity on that.
>
> What we have here is evidence that there is something being accrued and that 
> needs to be dug into.  We can worry about what best to call it when we know 
> more about what it is.
>
> My concern is that it is a debt that our users and the supporters of the 
> user-facing lists are paying the interest on [;<).
>
>  - Dennis
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:r...@robweir.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 06:29
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; <orc...@apache.org> <orc...@apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [REPORT] Issue Clearance Quality + Technical Debt
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > [BCC to Project Management Committee and users@ oo.a.o]
>> >
>> > SUMMARY
>> >
>> > The top-level analysis of Bugzilla issue handling has been completed
>> for all issues opened on the project through December 31, 2015.
>> >
>> > The complete tabulation is in the PDF document at
>> <http://s.apache.org/YFT>.
>> >
>> > It remains the case that since the establishment of Apache OpenOffice
>> as an ASF Top Level Project in November, 2012, the accrual of unresolved
>> issues exceeds 40%.  That is, for every 100 new issues, on the average
>> more than 40 of them will be unresolved indefinitely.
>> >
>> > In contrast, although there is a very large number of unresolved
>> issues that remain in the Bugzilla from its history as part of
>> OpenOffice.org, that previous technical debt was, proportionally, under
>> 20%.
>> >
>>
>> It is entirely unfounded to equate unresolved "issues" in Bugzilla
>> with "technical debt." When I was "leading" a group of QA volunteers a
>> few years ago to resolve BZ issues it was clear that only a small
>> percentage of them were actual reports of new bugs in the product.  A
>> very small fraction.  Most of them fit into other categories:
>>
>> 1) Questions on how to use to product, or misunderstandings about how
>> the product worked.
>>
>> 2) General system-wide issues and user was reaching out to us for free
>> computer technical support.
>>
>> 3) Redundant reports of already known bugs or already requested
>> enhancements,
>>
>> 4) Vague reports which could not be reproduced and which the original
>> submitter was unresponsive to requests for clarification.
>>
>> At that time we reduced these numbers by quite a bit.  But note that
>> this was done without changing a single line of code.  It was a paper
>> exercise of reducing the of open BZ issues only.   If closing BZ
>> issues in these categories does not magically improve product quality,
>> hopefully you can see how not closing such issues (due to less
>> organization in the QA activity) does not magically decrease product
>> quality, or technical debt for that matter.
>>
>> Anyone familiar with the discipline of SQE understands that the
>&g

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

2016-01-10 Thread Rob Weir
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> I am +1 for also looking at the why_new_computers page as Jan suggests.
>
> Telling people that AOO is free is not the issue.
>
> Where it is an advantage is a matter for users to decide.  We should let them 
> judge for themselves.
>

I think you are missing the point of this page and the other "why"
pages.   These are intended as landing pages for those arriving via
search engine queries looking for these very benefits.   We get around
20K referrals/month via Google, for example, to these pages.

Ask yourself, how else would someone that does not even know the name
"OpenOffice" find us if they were looking for an application that
reads ODF, or a free replacement to Microsoft Office (of whatever
version), or an office suite that is interoperable on multiple
platforms, or which supports an ISO standard file format?

Note that this is a significant issue.   When I last did a survey of
this (2014), 61% of U.S. internet users had not heard of the name
"OpenOffice".  
(http://www.robweir.com/blog/2014/10/the-power-of-brand-and-the-power-of-product-redux.html)
  If people don't know your name then you need to have landing pages
that speak to their concerns, to the problem they are trying to solve,
to the keywords that they are using when searching the web for the
kind of thing that OpenOffice could be a good fit for.   To do
otherwise is to beg to be invisible to them.

So in that sense, the users have judged for themselves, and expressed
their interest via their search query and have ended up on that
particular page.

It should be obvious that connecting users seeking a free replacement
to Microsoft Office to our website will require a page that uses the
word "free" and "Microsoft Office."  That is just how search engines
work.

I'd recommend updating the pages (and the many translated versions of
them) to increase relevancy, but continue to use them for their
intended purposes.

Regards,

-Rob


> Our blanket claims are not helpful and come off like commercial puffery.
>
> I do maintain that it is an opportunity to be able to install AOO for free 
> and determine whether their needs are satisfied by using AOO for all or much 
> of their document needs or not.
>
> I would suggest that flexibility and leave financial, cost of 
> operation/adoption, and interoperability determinations to users themselves.  
> They will presumably know what is most important to them.
>
> Since Office 2007 is also no longer of interest to those who do not have it 
> already, I agree that there is not much point in making any observations 
> about Office 2007 either.
>
>
>  - Dennis
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 14:05
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Updating the WHY section of www.openoffice.org
>>
>> Jan Høydahl wrote:
>> > Yes, remove the Office 2003 EOL page
>>
>> That page was written to have a SEO-friendly resource for people who
>> were looking for options to upgrade from Office 2003 back at the time.
>> It can probably be retired since it served its purpose.
>>
>> > But also consider rephrasing these two:
>> >
>> > * http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_new_computers.html
>> >You are not required to spend $100, $200 or more for a copy of
>> Microsoft Office
>>
>> This one can stay. What's wrong with it? We shouldn't be ashamed of
>> telling people that OpenOffice is free and that this is an advantage.
>>
>> > * http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_easy.html:
>> >Studies have proved it is easier (and cheaper) to move to
>> OpenOffice from Microsoft Office than it is to upgrade to Microsoft's
>> Office 2007.
>>
>> Yes, this should refer to the past. "Studies that compared upgrade
>> options for Microsoft Office 2003 proved that it was easier (and
>> cheaper) to move to OpenOffice from Microsoft Office than it is to
>> upgrade to Microsoft's Office 2007."
>>
>> 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: Updated download stats

2015-11-24 Thread Rob Weir
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Matthias Seidel
<matthias.sei...@hamburg.de> wrote:
> Thank you for updating the data!
>
> Looking at the curve for total downloads it seems it is cut off at
> 160,000,000. It looks like a flat line?
>

That's just the nature of the scale, that it shows all downloads from
0 to 160,000,000+.  Since any given day has 150,000 or so downloads,
the slope will be very shallow against the 160M figure.   That's less
than a pixel/day, yes?  So on some days it will indeed be flat.

In any case, the CSV file for the raw data is linked to on that page,
so anyone is free to find other (and perhaps better) was to visualize
it.

-Rob

> kind regards
>
> Matthias Seidel
>
>
> Am 24.11.2015 um 16:43 schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>> I've updated and run the download scripts for the 4.1.2 release and
>> put the updated data on our download stats page:
>>
>> http://www.openoffice.org/stats/downloads.html
>>
>> (You might need to force a browser cache update to get the latest data
>> file to load)
>>
>> It shows a strong response to the 4.1.2 release, with daily downloads
>> jumping up to over 170,000 on the peak day (November 9th).   The total
>> download count (for all AOO releases) is now at 160,562,857.
>>
>> Downloads now exceed the population of Bangladesh.  If AOO was a
>> country, we'd be the #8 most populous in the world.  Watch out,
>> Nigeria!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> -
>> 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



Updated download stats

2015-11-24 Thread Rob Weir
I've updated and run the download scripts for the 4.1.2 release and
put the updated data on our download stats page:

http://www.openoffice.org/stats/downloads.html

(You might need to force a browser cache update to get the latest data
file to load)

It shows a strong response to the 4.1.2 release, with daily downloads
jumping up to over 170,000 on the peak day (November 9th).   The total
download count (for all AOO releases) is now at 160,562,857.

Downloads now exceed the population of Bangladesh.  If AOO was a
country, we'd be the #8 most populous in the world.  Watch out,
Nigeria!

Regards,

-Rob

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



Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-17 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:25 AM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:27:53 GMT, Rob Weir <r...@robweir.com> wrote:
>
>> Last word, in case the inference is unclear.   We're dealing with a
>> sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia.  Correcting erroneous
>> information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an
>> edit war.  Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.   Any progress would
>> only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict  and his bad will
>> (not hard to do),  and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia
>> appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom
>> bureaucratic process is dear.  Since Dennis does not want to discuss
>> this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to
>> discuss this further.
>
>
> When you're putting together a plan for marketing efforts concerning a
> Wikipedia article, it may help if you don't leave prima facie evidence
> of your coordinated effort on a public mailing list.
>
> Editing with a conflict of interest is not specifically disallowed by
> Wikipedia policies, but ideally it should be avoided. Note example on
> the talk page, where a list participant properly noted his involvement
> when this was brought to his attention.
>
> Relevant guideline: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
>
> You should note also that a "conflict of interest" does not mean a
> differing opinion, and also that improperly founded accusations of COI
> are held to constitute personal attacks and should ideally be avoided.
>
> There are those (e.g. Jimmy Wales) who believe public relations
> efforts on Wikipedia should work to the "bright line" standard, where
> you don't go near the article at all, and certainly don't try to
> coordinate an off-site attack on a Wikipedia contributor because you
> believe they are not helping your marketing. This is something the
> project, and the Foundation in general, should probably consider.
>


You are not reading very well today, David.  I'm not talking about, "a
plan for marketing efforts concerning a Wikipedia article."   I'm
talking about an effort to bring together evidence of your conflict of
interest as well as your tendentious editing (much of which I have
already collected over the past few years) and use that to lodge an
appeal, via official and public channels, to get a topic ban imposed
on you on Wikipedia articles relevant to this infringement.

Cheers.

-Rob

> Cheers!
>
>
> - d.
>
> -
> 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: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-16 Thread Rob Weir
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:52 PM, John D'Orazio
 wrote:
> Interestingly mr. David Gerard IS a moderator on Wikipedia it seems. He
> still has to abide by the rules though. And there is quite a bit of
> discussion on the talk page, where some users have opted to split the
> "Apache OpenOffice" project onto its own page as a completely separate
> derivative project. All that is needed is to chime in on the article talk
> page citing references to legal info about OpenOffice.org being officially
> in the hands of the Apache Software Foundation. If there is evidence of
> that (which seems obvious to me, I'm a newcomer but I go to the webpage and
> I see Apache OpenOffice on the OpenOffice.org webpage), it just needs to be
> cited on the talk page to back any kind of edits to the article that
> reflect that. Seems that the article has already been split and "Apache
> OpenOffice" has it's own wikipedia article (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice), I wouldn't make a big
> deal about having a separate article but I would oppose the POV opinions
> about Apache not having legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project (hence
> the corrections to the infobox information).
> I don't know all of the technicalities, so the edits I just made might not
> be precise, for example which release was the first release to have the
> Apache license?
>

Is this the same David Gerard discussed here?

https://encyclopediadramatica.se/David_Gerard



> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 09/14/2015 11:44 AM, John D'Orazio wrote:
>> > I'll try to change it too. If someone on wikipedia reverts an edit up to
>> > three times without founded reason, they can be blocked by a wikipedia
>> > moderator. So they won't be able to continue reverting forever...
>>
>> Well this is interesting information. I was wondering if there might be
>> editing wars forever! :)
>>
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Matthias Seidel <
>> matthias.sei...@hamburg.de
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> https://twitter.com/davidgerard
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Am 14.09.2015 um 17:03 schrieb Max Merbald:
>> >>
>> >>> I changed it back. Who is this David Gerard person who obviously wants
>> >>> to damage OpenOffice?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Am 14.09.2015 um 16:48 schrieb Donald Whytock:
>> >>>
>>  There was a minor skirmish last week over it.  Looks like there'll be
>> one
>>  this week too...someone changed it to "moribund".
>> 
>>  On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Phillip Rhodes
>>  
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>  Sorry, I missed the infobox when I looked at the page.  You're right,
>> > having "Dormant" there is flat out wrong and very misleading.
>> >
>> > I changed it to "Active" just now and added a ref pointer to the
>> 4.1.2
>> > release schedule that Andrea just provided.  I just hope there aren't
>> > certain parties with a vested interest in denigrating AOO sitting
>> around
>> > planning to start a revert war over this.   :-(
>> >
>> >
>> > Phil
>> >
>> >
>> > This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Max Merbald 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Phil,
>> >>
>> >> what I meant was the infobox at the top right. In that box it says
>> that
>> >> AOO is dormat, which is not correct and which is not in the
>> citations.
>> >>
>> > The
>> >
>> >> presence of a citation does not necessry mean that the claimed info
>> >> is in
>> >> the citation. If people read on the Wikipedia that AOO is "dormant"
>> >>
>> > they'll
>> >
>> >> start looking for different office software.
>> >>
>> >> Max
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Am 03.09.2015 um 23:12 schrieb Phillip Rhodes:
>> >>
>> >> I just looked at the Wikipedia page and don't see anything that's -
>> >>> strictly speaking - incorrect, or lacking citations.  IOW, I don't
>> see
>> >>>
>> >> any
>> >
>> >> supportable rationale for removing anything that's there, although
>> one
>> >>> could question the motives of whoever made it a point to call out
>> some
>> >>> concerns about lack of activity in the first paragaph of the
>> article.
>> >>> Nonetheless, I think any attempt to modify that will face
>> opposition.
>> >>>
>> >>> In a related vein, The Guardian recently ran this article titled
>> >>>
>> >> "Should I
>> >
>> >> Switch From Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice or Microsoft Office".
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/sep/03/switch-openoffice-libreoffice-or-microsoft-office
>> >
>> > I don't know if there's any easy way to counter this narrative that's
>> >>> spreading through the press, about AOO being
>> dead/dormant/whatever, or
>> 

Re: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-16 Thread Rob Weir
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:
> Time, gentlemen, time.
>
> We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread go 
> night-night.
>
> Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and AOO 
> business.  We have our own business to attend to.  If folks want to keep 
> fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on dev@.
>

Ad hominem?  Excuse me?   The web page has a record of Wikipedia
abuses attributed to Mr. Gerard and cites several cases where he was
sanction for it.   One can talk about his actions without slurring his
person, especially when such acts are directly relevant to the topic
of this thread.

-Rob

>  - 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: Wrongful information on the Wikipedia

2015-09-16 Thread Rob Weir
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Rob Weir <r...@robweir.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Time, gentlemen, time.
>>
>> We're far across the ad hominem boundary and it is time to let this thread 
>> go night-night.
>>
>> Whatever is thought of about what happens on Wikipedia, it is not ASF and 
>> AOO business.  We have our own business to attend to.  If folks want to keep 
>> fussing about it, there are many better places to do that than here on dev@.
>>
>
> Ad hominem?  Excuse me?   The web page has a record of Wikipedia
> abuses attributed to Mr. Gerard and cites several cases where he was
> sanction for it.   One can talk about his actions without slurring his
> person, especially when such acts are directly relevant to the topic
> of this thread.
>

Last word, in case the inference is unclear.   We're dealing with a
sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia.  Correcting erroneous
information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an
edit war.  Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.   Any progress would
only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict  and his bad will
(not hard to do),  and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia
appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom
bureaucratic process is dear.  Since Dennis does not want to discuss
this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to
discuss this further.

-Rob

> -Rob
>
>>  - 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: AOO -> LO or MS O

2015-09-03 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Rich Bowen  wrote:
>
>
> On 09/03/2015 08:33 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>
>> "After LibreOffice came out, Oracle released one version of Oracle Open
>> Office before deciding that the project wasn’t worth the effort
>>
>> .
>> It laid off the programmers and gave the code and trademarks to the Apache
>> Software Foundation, under Apache’s liberal open source license."
>>
>> That's one version of events. Another version of events is this.
>> http://pages.citebite.com/e7v0f3m9sder
>>
>> "Shuttleworth has a fairly serious disagreement with how the
>> OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice split came about. He said that Sun made a $100
>> million "gift" to the community when it opened up the OpenOffice code. But
>> a "radical faction" made the lives of the OpenOffice developers "hell" by
>> refusing to contribute code under the Sun agreement. That eventually led
>> to
>> the split, but furthermore led Oracle to finally decide to stop OpenOffice
>> development and lay off 100 employees."
>>
>> That's different from "deciding it was not worth the effort".
>>
>> Why the FUD on a dev list, anyway?
>
>
> It's not FUD. It's a link to an article.
>
> What would be awesome is if someone would write a counterpoint, which is
> non-confrontational, non-rageful, non-hateful, and non-reactionary, but just
> calmly presenting the reasons why someone might want to stay on OpenOffice.
>

We did a survey on this question back in 2013.   The question was:
"You have a choice of several open source office suites. Why do you
use OpenOffice rather than alternatives like LibreOffice or KOffice?"

The results were:

Features (47%)
Quality (22%)
Compatibility/Interoperability (22%)
Reputation/Familiarity (9%)


Regards,

-Rob


> Refuting the article on this list, where we all already know the story, is a
> good start, but if you could turn it into an article that's less political,
> more practical (features, community, timelines, and so on), that would
> actually help our cause. The person asking the original question doesn't
> care about politics, hurt feelings, and "radical factions", I guarantee.
> They want to know which product is better for them, now, and in the long
> term.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>

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



Re: AOO -> LO or MS O

2015-09-03 Thread Rob Weir
On Thursday, September 3, 2015, Louis Suárez-Potts <lui...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On 03 Sep 15, at 15:13, Rob Weir <r...@robweir.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 09/03/2015 08:33 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "After LibreOffice came out, Oracle released one version of Oracle Open
> >>> Office before deciding that the project wasn’t worth the effort
> >>>
> >>> <
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/04/oracle-gives-up-on-ooo-after-community-forks-the-project/
> >.
> >>> It laid off the programmers and gave the code and trademarks to the
> Apache
> >>> Software Foundation, under Apache’s liberal open source license."
> >>>
> >>> That's one version of events. Another version of events is this.
> >>> http://pages.citebite.com/e7v0f3m9sder
> >>>
> >>> "Shuttleworth has a fairly serious disagreement with how the
> >>> OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice split came about. He said that Sun made a
> $100
> >>> million "gift" to the community when it opened up the OpenOffice code.
> But
> >>> a "radical faction" made the lives of the OpenOffice developers "hell"
> by
> >>> refusing to contribute code under the Sun agreement. That eventually
> led
> >>> to
> >>> the split, but furthermore led Oracle to finally decide to stop
> OpenOffice
> >>> development and lay off 100 employees."
> >>>
> >>> That's different from "deciding it was not worth the effort".
> >>>
> >>> Why the FUD on a dev list, anyway?
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not FUD. It's a link to an article.
> >>
> >> What would be awesome is if someone would write a counterpoint, which is
> >> non-confrontational, non-rageful, non-hateful, and non-reactionary, but
> just
> >> calmly presenting the reasons why someone might want to stay on
> OpenOffice.
> >>
> >
> > We did a survey on this question back in 2013.
>
> 2013 was ages ago.
>
>
>
I'm happy to repeat the survey.



> > The question was:
> > "You have a choice of several open source office suites. Why do you
> > use OpenOffice rather than alternatives like LibreOffice or Office?"
>
> Does KOffice even exist? Is it not Calligra? These data points are also a
> little murky. Many do obtain AOO and LO by downloading it. Others, say
> those using Ubuntu or Red Hat installations, or from public sector
> installations are less able to choose as individuals. The relevant
> executive makes the decision. Do we know what they are looking for?
>
>
Could deal with that via wording, e.g., offer a choice of "someone else
chose for me".  The point is we do not need to speculate.  This is
knowable.  We just need to ask.

As for public sector, the trend appears to be that when they move to open
source office suites, the press touts their move to "LibreOffice".  But
when the exact same agency decides to migrate from open source back to MS
Office the press reports that they've abandoned "OpenOffice".   Obviously
the 11th Commandment with open source press is "Thou shalt not speek good
of Apache OpenOffice".

Regards,

Rob



> Even if we do not know, or cannot guess, the journalists of the tech world
> seem united to love LO and do the nasty with AOO.
>
> louis
> >
> > The results were:
> >
> > Features (47%)
> > Quality (22%)
> > Compatibility/Interoperability (22%)
> > Reputation/Familiarity (9%)
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
> >> Refuting the article on this list, where we all already know the story,
> is a
> >> good start, but if you could turn it into an article that's less
> political,
> >> more practical (features, community, timelines, and so on), that would
> >> actually help our cause. The person asking the original question doesn't
> >> care about politics, hurt feelings, and "radical factions", I guarantee.
> >> They want to know which product is better for them, now, and in the long
> >> term.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com <javascript:;> - @rbowen
> >> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> >>
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
>
>


Re: 2015-08-25 When Speaking as the Chair

2015-08-26 Thread Rob Weir
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Tony Stevenson t...@pc-tony.com wrote:

 On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, at 06:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
 [BCC to the AOO PMC]

 From the Chair,

 It occurs to me that the role of the Chair of the Apache OpenOffice
 Project Management Committee is often seriously over-estimated.  There is
 also a level of prestige that may be associated with it that tends to
 give more weight to what I might say than otherwise.

 Why? I really do not get how you might come to that conclusion. As there
 is no prestige, or weight to be added when doing day-to-day activities.

 It is important for me that others understand that for the most part, the
 PMC Chair is no different than another member of the PMC, other
 committers, and the many other contributors in the Apache OpenOffice
 community.

 Exactly! This is in direct contradiction of your opening paragraph.

 I don't want to have my communications to now be taken with
 more authority than they would were I not the Chair.

 For anyone who knows how the ASF works they will know that this is not
 even possible. As you are no more senior, and therefore carry no more
 authority.

 So, when I am speaking as the Chair, I will always introduce my emails
 with From the Chair.  That means I am operating in the context of my
 responsibilities as an Officer of the Foundation.

 Wow. I find this whole line of thinking extremely disheartening and
 quite frankly condescending and disingenuous. It borders on the
 ludicrous.



Hi Tony,

It is always nice to hear the perspective of enlightened Apache
Members, but please do recall that the audience of this list is not
exclusively made up of such people.   We have experience with
statements by chairs (and even non-chairs) being misinterpreted by
those outside of the project, including the press.   This is our
actual experience, not some overly-caution supposition.   So its seems
reasonable to be a bit more explicit about this, for the benefit of
those not as enlightened as yourself.

Regards,

-Rob


 In all other cases, there is no distinction.  If it is about PMC matters,
 it must be regarded as only something any PMC member could do or say.

 Again, how does PMC chair change this?  It does not.

 And in all cases, for weighty matters consensus is sought and you will
 usually know how that has or has not been achieved in the usual way that
 [PROPOSAL], [DISCUSS], and [VOTE] mail threads are handled.

 Thank you for the support that I have been offered and the trust you have
 placed in me as I undertake this new role.

 I do hope this PMC can see it's way past all this rigmarole and to a
 lighterweight, flexible and frankly functional (not combative) future.


  - Dennis


 Many thanks,

 --
 Tony

 -
 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] Dennis Hamilton as new AOO Chair.

2015-08-17 Thread Rob Weir
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 2:57 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
 This is a call for a formal vote among the 1 candidate for the AOO Chair
 role.

 Due to the fact that there are only 1 candidate we could use lazy
 consensus, but since
 some persons might be against that, we will use majority vote, as if there
 was multiple candidates.

 Voting rules are as follows:
 - Only PMC votes are binding, but everybody are welcome to vote
 - The nominee with the most +1 (deducted -1) gets elected
 - VOTE runs until Sunday August 23th
 - As outgoing Chair, I will send resolution to Board August 23th.

 Please vote
 [ ]  +1, I want Dennis Hamilton as new Chair
 [ ] +0, I do not care if Dennis Hamilton becomes new Chair
 [ ] -1, I am against Dennis Hamilton becomes new chair
  (out of curtesy, please add another suggestion).


+1


 Have fun voting.
 rgds
 jan i.

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



Re: For Information: Reported Windows 10 problems

2015-08-06 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie wrote:
 On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:44:01 -0400
 Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:

 Did some of my own testing, starting with a clean image of Windows 7
 Professional x64.  Installed AOO 4.1.1 and created and saved files
 with Writer, Calc and Impress.  Did the upgrade to Windows 10.
 Confirmed that I could read and write the previously saved files.
 Tried both opening the files from within the apps as well as
 double-clicking the documents from the File Explorer.   I experienced
 no file permission issues.

 -Rob

 Thanks, Rob.  So we may reasonably conclude that most of the reported 
 problems about read-only files are due to faulty user interaction with Win10. 
  It is most helpful to have confirmation of that point.


We can only really say that there does not seem to be a problem with
the most straightforward upgrade scenario.   There may be an issue,
with Windows or with AOO, in some more complicated scenarios.   Or
not.  It might be worth asking a few questions to see if there is a
pattern:

1) What version of Windows did you upgrade from?

2) 32 bit or 64 bit?

3) The Windows 10 upgrade gives three options:  a) Fresh install, b)
Preserve Data and Programs and c) Preserve data only.   Which did you
do?

4) Where were the documents stored that AOO sees as read-only?  Local
HD?   USB stick?  Cloud storage?

5) Do you see this problem with other applications and their
documents, or only with AOO?

Regards,

-Rob

 Rory


 On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
  These accounts don't provide enough information to nail anything down to 
  root causes, and some of the forum cases are not resolved one way or the 
  other yet.
 
  My main desktop machine upgraded (with my permission) to Windows 10 Pro 
  x64 on the evening of July 29.
 
  I already had AOO 4.1.1 and LibreOffice 4.3.5.2 installed.
 
  I just did some random opening of existing .odt and .ods files in both 
  applications.  I just opened all AOO applications from the menu window.
 
  I am unable to find any of these problems.
 
  I don't dispute that others are having some sort of trouble.  I am saying 
  it is not something I can isolate any evidence for.
 
  We need to have someone who can work with us to resolve a Bugzilla on a 
  specific case, being able to provide screen shots or other useful 
  information on exactly what is happening, what the messages are, etc.  We 
  also need to keep other reports separate unless the detailed actual 
  situations are confirmed to be the same.
 
  I am happy to work with anyone who is able to do that and has a 
  demonstrated case of post-upgrade difficulties that we can nail down.
 
   - Dennis
 
  PS: When getting the Windows File Explorer properties for a folder, the 
  Read-only attribute box will tend to have a black square in it.  This does 
  not mean that all of the files are read only.  This may be misleading some 
  folks into thinking that is their problem.  Only if there is a check-mark 
  in the box are the files in the folder all set to read-only.  (The black 
  box apparently means there might be some read-only files in the folder 
  below, and those are usually system files, not everything.)
 
  PPS: I have seen reports that Windows 10 Home (not Pro) has increased 
  security safeguards.  I don't know if this is related or not.
 
  PPPS: I have not attempted any fresh installs of anything.  I will install 
  a later version of LibreOffice to see if there are problems there.  Based 
  on my experience so far, I do not expect any.
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Rob Weir [mailto:r...@robweir.com]
  Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 05:47
  To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
  Subject: Re: For Information: Reported Windows 10 problems
 
  I see this as well:
 
  http://www.cnet.com/forums/discussions/windows-10-changed-all-my-documents-to-read-only/
 
  The test to do is check the file in Windows Explorer.   Right click
  and go to the Properties panel.   If it is marked read only there,
  with AOO not even running, then it is an OS issue.
 
  -Rob
 
  On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie wrote:
  I should stat by saying that I do not now use Windows other than an old 
  version for access to archived files in old formats, so what I write 
  below is based on a quick analysis from memory of recent Forum postings.
 
  There are a number of reported Windows 10 problems, some of which are 
  being laid at the door of OpenOffice although they may be generic W10 
  upgrade difficulties and/or user problems with that upgrade.
 
  I list below some of the recent threads.
 
  The most common problem is that the W10 upgrade leaves all OpenOffice 
  files (and, from other reports, other application files) in read-only 
  form;  this read-only may possibly be removable but there is no clear 
  100% effective path to do this (from the reports below)
 
  Other reports

Re: STATE OF AOO: Overall Bugzilla Activity through July 2015

2015-08-06 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
 Thanks for generating the numbers. Even when it is no surprise that we have
 many unsolved issues, it's always good to know the current values.


From the stats perspective, what is interesting is when you have a
real de-duplicated, validated set of defect reports.   That is not
what we have now.  We have numerous duplicates, open issues that
should be closed as fixed, and even many support questions
masquerading as bug reports.  Trying to interpret raw defect report
stats is a hard problem.

 In general I agree with Juergen and Roberto, we should focus on the newer
 times of AOO.

 Suggestion:

 To get rid of old issues we need to close all issues that are already in a
 state short before closure [*]:

 Duplicate, Irreproducible, Obsolete, Not_an_issue, Verified, Wont_fix

 As second step we can close all issues that are in status Resolved and
 last updated months/years ago.

 Then we have a much lower base of open issues and can filter better about
 age, importantance and severity. Finally it's then easier to decide what to
 do with the remaining open issues.


This is also an area where new QA volunteers can really make a
difference.   If you recall, a few years ago we did a call for QA
volunteers and had almost a dozen of them going through old issues to
try to validate them in the current AOO build.   This is a task that
can be crowd sourced,...if there is someone who volunteers to organize
the effort, assign bugs for other volunteers to look at, answer
questions, give feedback, etc.

Another step we could take is to send a reminder note to all reports
of bugs that have been marked as needs more information.   Say that
the issue will be closed as not reproducible if the needed
information is not made available in, say 4 weeks.   Of course, such
issues can always be reopened if information comes in later.

 [*] This makes it necessary to stop all BZ notification mails. Otherwise we
 get flooded by billions of mails and get hit by the Infra team all summer
 long. ;-)


A good reminder ;-)

Regards,

-Rob

 Marcus




 Am 08/06/2015 04:56 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:

 In looking for visible indicators of project activity, I created an
 overview of Bugzilla activity from November 2012 through July 2015.

 This is a high-level view of gross activity and does not provide fine
 details.  There is still an interesting picture.

 My complete tabulation is available in a PDF document at

 http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/pmc/project-state/2015-07-BZ-OverallActivity-2015-08-05-dh.pdf.

 Here is a summary of what I captured.

2012-11: #121299 First new issue in the Bugzilla of the AOO Top Level
 Project.
2015-07: #126439 Last new issue in the Bugzilla at the end of July,
 2015.

 By years, (2012 and 2015 partial)

   20122013   2014   2015

9292136   1739441 BZ items/month
133 198170 65 New issues/month
 (averages are rounded to whole numbers)

 As of 2015-08-05
* the oldest open issue is #497 created
  2001-03-02
* 24115 issues still open from before
November, 2012
*  2232 issues remain open of the 5139
new issues from November, 2012
through July, 2015
*   192 issues remain open of the 452
of those created in the first
7 months of 2015

 The most noticeable aspects are the steady decline in monthly Bugzilla
 items (i.e., entries of all kinds) and in the number of those that are
 introduction of new issues.

 The next observation is of the tremendous number of open issues that
 preceded the commencement of Apache OpenOffice following the incubation
 period begun in June 2011.

 To see other patterns, it is necessary to examine finer details.  I
 propose to do that only for 2015, so we have a better community
 understanding of what is happening with issues at this time.

 I have no interpretation of these trends, and the burden inherited by
 Apache OpenOffice, other than noticing what they are.


   -- Dennis E. Hamilton


 -
 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: For Information: Reported Windows 10 problems

2015-08-05 Thread Rob Weir
Did some of my own testing, starting with a clean image of Windows 7
Professional x64.  Installed AOO 4.1.1 and created and saved files
with Writer, Calc and Impress.  Did the upgrade to Windows 10.
Confirmed that I could read and write the previously saved files.
Tried both opening the files from within the apps as well as
double-clicking the documents from the File Explorer.   I experienced
no file permission issues.

-Rob

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
 These accounts don't provide enough information to nail anything down to root 
 causes, and some of the forum cases are not resolved one way or the other yet.

 My main desktop machine upgraded (with my permission) to Windows 10 Pro x64 
 on the evening of July 29.

 I already had AOO 4.1.1 and LibreOffice 4.3.5.2 installed.

 I just did some random opening of existing .odt and .ods files in both 
 applications.  I just opened all AOO applications from the menu window.

 I am unable to find any of these problems.

 I don't dispute that others are having some sort of trouble.  I am saying it 
 is not something I can isolate any evidence for.

 We need to have someone who can work with us to resolve a Bugzilla on a 
 specific case, being able to provide screen shots or other useful information 
 on exactly what is happening, what the messages are, etc.  We also need to 
 keep other reports separate unless the detailed actual situations are 
 confirmed to be the same.

 I am happy to work with anyone who is able to do that and has a demonstrated 
 case of post-upgrade difficulties that we can nail down.

  - Dennis

 PS: When getting the Windows File Explorer properties for a folder, the 
 Read-only attribute box will tend to have a black square in it.  This does 
 not mean that all of the files are read only.  This may be misleading some 
 folks into thinking that is their problem.  Only if there is a check-mark in 
 the box are the files in the folder all set to read-only.  (The black box 
 apparently means there might be some read-only files in the folder below, and 
 those are usually system files, not everything.)

 PPS: I have seen reports that Windows 10 Home (not Pro) has increased 
 security safeguards.  I don't know if this is related or not.

 PPPS: I have not attempted any fresh installs of anything.  I will install a 
 later version of LibreOffice to see if there are problems there.  Based on my 
 experience so far, I do not expect any.


 -Original Message-
 From: Rob Weir [mailto:r...@robweir.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 05:47
 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
 Subject: Re: For Information: Reported Windows 10 problems

 I see this as well:

 http://www.cnet.com/forums/discussions/windows-10-changed-all-my-documents-to-read-only/

 The test to do is check the file in Windows Explorer.   Right click
 and go to the Properties panel.   If it is marked read only there,
 with AOO not even running, then it is an OS issue.

 -Rob

 On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie wrote:
 I should stat by saying that I do not now use Windows other than an old 
 version for access to archived files in old formats, so what I write below 
 is based on a quick analysis from memory of recent Forum postings.

 There are a number of reported Windows 10 problems, some of which are being 
 laid at the door of OpenOffice although they may be generic W10 upgrade 
 difficulties and/or user problems with that upgrade.

 I list below some of the recent threads.

 The most common problem is that the W10 upgrade leaves all OpenOffice files 
 (and, from other reports, other application files) in read-only form;  this 
 read-only may possibly be removable but there is no clear 100% effective 
 path to do this (from the reports below)

 Other reports are of inability to open OO applications - Calc apparently 
 being the most commonly affected.

 https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9t=78470

 https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6t=78450

 https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15t=78432

 https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15t=78445

 --
 Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie

 -
 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


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

Re: For Information: Reported Windows 10 problems

2015-08-04 Thread Rob Weir
I see this as well:

http://www.cnet.com/forums/discussions/windows-10-changed-all-my-documents-to-read-only/

The test to do is check the file in Windows Explorer.   Right click
and go to the Properties panel.   If it is marked read only there,
with AOO not even running, then it is an OS issue.

-Rob

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie wrote:
 I should stat by saying that I do not now use Windows other than an old 
 version for access to archived files in old formats, so what I write below is 
 based on a quick analysis from memory of recent Forum postings.

 There are a number of reported Windows 10 problems, some of which are being 
 laid at the door of OpenOffice although they may be generic W10 upgrade 
 difficulties and/or user problems with that upgrade.

 I list below some of the recent threads.

 The most common problem is that the W10 upgrade leaves all OpenOffice files 
 (and, from other reports, other application files) in read-only form;  this 
 read-only may possibly be removable but there is no clear 100% effective path 
 to do this (from the reports below)

 Other reports are of inability to open OO applications - Calc apparently 
 being the most commonly affected.

 https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9t=78470

 https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6t=78450

 https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15t=78432

 https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15t=78445

 --
 Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie

 -
 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 with web site staging build

2015-07-31 Thread Rob Weir
I just checked in a website file and got a build error as well:

Invalid argument: Can't convert string from 'UTF-8' to native
encoding:: 
/usr/home/cmsslave/slave15/ooo-site-site-staging/build/trunk/content/de/doc/howto_2_0/draw/pics/in_3D_Rotationsko?\204?\136rper.png
at /usr/local/cms/build/lib/ASF/SVNUtil.pm line 36
Invalid argument: Can't convert string from 'UTF-8' to native
encoding:: 
/usr/local/websites/ooo-site/trunk/content/fr/Documentation/Guides/fr_FR.aff.documente?\204?\129
at /usr/local/cms/build/lib/ASF/SVNUtil.pm line 36

The first one is rather odd.   Why is it looking for character
encoding in a PNG file?

-Rob

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
 Am 07/30/2015 04:38 PM, schrieb | Stelios Lambropoulos |:

 We saw there was a problem with buildbot about the consultants listing for
 infolearn”.
 Is there anything we can do? Should we reapply/resend?


 thanks for coming back to this.

 Yes, it was already added to the SVN repository where the website is
 managed. But there is a little problem to get this also to the production
 webserver.

 There is nothing more you need to do. IMHO we need some more patience to get
 the problem fixed - especially now in the summer and therefore vacation
 time.

 @Andrea:
 Do you have a response from the Infra team - or a JIRA issue?

 Thanks

 Marcus




 -Original Message-
 From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 8:01 PM
 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
 Subject: Re: problem with web site staging build

 On 07/26/2015 12:48 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

 On 25/07/2015 Kay Schenk wrote:

 I just committed the new consultants listing for infolearn to
 /openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/bizdev/consultants.html
 and much to my surprise, The buldbot has erred out.
 See info at:
 https://ci.apache.org/builders/ooo-site-site-staging/builds/6/steps/c
 ompile/logs/stdio


 Reading the logs, it seems this has nothing to do with your specific
 updated, but rather with two filenames that use non-ASCII characters.

 I've fixed the two reported ones (well this is not necessarily a bug
 in the file names; they always worked so far, so this may be an issue
 with the new buildbot setup) to check:

 http://svn.apache.org/r1692695

 http://svn.apache.org/r1692696

 Let's see if this gets rid of warnings. The affected files were unused
 (even if I took care of renaming where helpful) and had names like
 (hoping they get rendered correctly in mail clients): excepții.css
 with a special t and ProjectMembersh…equestHelp.html with a literal ...
 character, of course due to some mistake.

 Regards,
Andrea.


 Thanks for looking deeper into this, Andrea. The most recent buildbot log
 indicates we still have issues. So, it does look like a new issue with the
 buildbot setup at this point.


 -
 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



150 million downloads, and then some

2015-07-31 Thread Rob Weir
I just updated the download stats.   Once we fix a website build error
this will show up on the website chart [1] as well.

We've had 151,441,372 downloads of Apache OpenOffice since we released
our first version at Apache in May 2012.

Regards,

-Rob



1: http://www.openoffice.org/stats/downloads.html

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Would you like to be the new chair of AOO ?

2015-07-31 Thread Rob Weir
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Roberto Galoppini
roberto.galopp...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi all,

 I would like to nominate Dennis Hamilton (orcmid), for a number of reasons
 we already discussed here, and more important to say because of his very
 positive attitude towards collaboration within the PMC.

 He proved to be an excellent mediator and advisor to the group, always
 respectful of the Apache Way and willing to help.


+1.

I think Dennis would be a great choice, if he is willing.   I've known
him for almost a decade now, from his volunteer work on the ODF
standard and with ODF interoperability.   He was one of the few true
volunteer members of the ODF TC, not working for any of the large
commercial vendors, but gained the respect of all with his technical
knowledge and experience, but also his willingness to work with all.
He's a gentleman, something we don't see much anymore.   I met him
once in Seattle at an ODF Plugfest and he made me appreciate the
importance of thanking public bus drivers.  My mentioning all this
will surely embarrass Dennis a little, but that's the kind of guy he
is, and I want to make sure you know that.

Regards,

-Rob

 Roberto





 2015-07-30 12:39 GMT+02:00 jan i j...@apache.org:

 Hi.

 I will resign at the board meeting in September, so the current schedule
 looks like:
 Accept/Nominate/Discuss candidates until August 16th
 Discussion ends August 23th
 Voting ends September 4th
 Resolution send to board September 5th.
 New chair takes over immediately after the board meeting.

 snip
 Please use this mail thread to announce yourself as a candidate, or to
 nominate
 someone else (remark that person must state whether or not the nomination
 is
 accepted). There are no formal limits to being a nominee, apart from
 committer
 status.

 The rules for the vote, will depend on the number of candidates but is
 basically
 a majority vote, with PMC votes being binding.

 rgds
 jan i.


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



Re: ODF 1.2 and AOO ?

2015-07-17 Thread Rob Weir
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:06 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi

 Can someone please help me understand the implications of this:
 https://blog.documentfoundation.org/2015/07/17/open-document-format-odf-1-2-published-as-international-standard-263002015-by-isoiec/

 Do we also support ODF 1.2 ?
 if yes, then we should also tell it,  if not what are the implications ?

 I thought ODF 1.2 was relative old, but I might be wrong.


Think of this as a status change for ODF 1.2.  It was an
international standard (with lower-case i) because it was approved
by OASIS.  Now it is an International Standard (with capital I)
because it was approved by ISO/IEC JTC1.   The text of the
specification is not changed, except for a small number of editorial
corrections, but the standard now has an additional level of approval.
  This doesn't impact AOO directly, but may impact its adoption,
especially if a particular user requires the use of ISO standards,
e.g., some public sector agencies.

Regards,

-Rob

 thanks for any information.

 rgds
 jan i.

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



Re: Download Stats

2015-06-29 Thread Rob Weir
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:

 On Saturday, June 27, 2015, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:

 
  On 06/26/2015 11:27 AM, Marcus wrote:
   Am 06/26/2015 12:40 PM, schrieb Rory O'Farrell:
   Just to note that the OO download statistics haven't been updated in a
   long time.
  
   I remember that Rob has taken care about updating these numbers.
   Unfortunately, I don't know where it is decribed how it is done.
  
   Marcus
 
  I think Rob's python scripts are in:
  http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/devtools/aoo-stats/
  using the csv file you see there (?0 but I don't know where THAT comes
  from.
 
  This was a nice feature but we need instructions.

 I don't think Rob has abandoned  the ship, just busy doing other thing.


I'm still around.   But I have been moving to a new home in New Hampshire,
so had a few days without internet and another one before I found what box
had my computer mouse in it!



 rob@ would be nice if you could add a little explanation.


I've been updating every month or so.   It was last updated mid May.
 I'll do it again at the end of June.  At one point we talked about hooking
the code up to the CMS and have it generate automatically, but I don't know
if that is still feasible.

If someone wanted up-to-the-minute numbers I think that would look better
as a live counter graphic on the download page, or something like that.
The script on /devtools/aoo-stats does much more than produce the data for
that chart.   It also does daily breakdowns by version, OS and language,
data that is useful for other things.   So I'd encourage maintaining that
script and the full underlying data set.

Regards,

-Rob


 rgds
 jan i


 
  
   -
   To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
  javascript:;
   For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
  javascript:;
  
 
  --
  
  MzK
 
  We can all sleep easy at night knowing that
   somewhere at any given time,
   the Foo Fighters are out there fighting Foo.
-- David Letterman
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
  javascript:;
  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
  javascript:;
 
 

 --
 Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.



Re: Source signed by someone not on your list

2015-06-03 Thread Rob Weir
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:49 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:

 Hi

 Juergen Schmidt was the release manager for the latest AOO releases so the
 key is valid.

 If you use our official mirror through www.openoffice.org you should see
 that the
 key is legal.

 but thanks for being observant and reporting your findings.

 rgds
 jan i
 v.p. apache openoffice


 On Wednesday, June 3, 2015, tensizes tensi...@gmail.com wrote:

  Hi,
 
  This is a security heads-up.  After downloading the latest release of
  Apache Open Office and checking the key, I found it was signed by someone
  not on your published KEYS file list of contributors, someone named
 Jeurgen
  Schmidt
 
  His/her pgp key id is 51B5FDE8
 


His key is listed here as well:   http://openoffice.apache.org/security

-Rob



  The release file is from mirror http://mirrors.gigenet.com
  Filename: apache-openoffice-4.1.1-r1617669-src.tar.bz2
 
  Either Jeurgen Schmidt has been left off of your list, or they have been
  signing sources without permission.
 
  Thanks for your development efforts,
  tensizes
 


 --
 Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.



Re: Two Languages: One ISO-639-# code

2015-05-20 Thread Rob Weir
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 7:14 AM, toki toki.kant...@gmail.com wrote:



 On 19/05/2015 10:20, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:

  So in ISO 639-X the most accurate you can pinpoint it is xo and then xho.
  And in glotolog; you have mpon1252 as its most precise denominator.
 
  Now as it *happens* - this language is spoken in an area fully covered
 by a single country - so you can use a 3166 as a country (-1, ZA) or (-2,
 ZA-EC, ZA-NL) region specifier; and then refine it.
  As it happens that the region more or less maps to the language spoken
 there (and lets argue that in that region or country no other languages
 are spoken).

 However, Xhosa is currently included in AOo, and is spoken in the same
 country as mPondo. I _think_ that AOo currently uses ISO 3166-1 code
 (IE: ZA).

 
  For a slightly different example, I give you Koine Greek and Attic Greek
  .
  Linguist-List codes them as grc-koi  grc-att, respectively.
  ISO 639-2 code is GRC. ISO 639-3 is GRC. No ISO 639-1 code.
 
  I wish all dialects/languages were as accommodating as:
  Gottolog lush1251
  ISO 639-1 none;
  ISO 639-2 none;
  ISO 639-3 LUT;
  ISO 639-3 SKA;
  ISO 639-3 SNO;
  ISO 639-3 SLH;
  (Note: AFAIK, there are no spell checkers or grammar checkers for those
  dialects, for any office suite.)
 
  So also good examples - and I think the same applies
 
  - you get broad specifiers on -1, -2 level.
  - you may get granular specifiers in -3 and -5 for the rarer/older
 languages.
  - for dialects and more refined pinpointing you hit the limits of
 639(-5) and have
two options; petition SIL/Library of Congress to add one (above
 examples are all in scope); or rely on glottolog.
 
  and
 
  - using regional coding; 3166; is not really helping you - as they
 do not define language.

 ISO 3166-2  3166-1 codes are useful for locales. Which is the
 difference between Xhosa, and mPondo. At least, if one accepts the legal
 fiction that the enclaves are part of KwaZulu, and not Eastern Cape, and
 also the debatable point that mPondo is either a distinct language or a
 dialect of Xhosa.

 I will grant that for the First Nation languages of Australia, ISO
 3166-2 codes are not helpful, because the language changes at intervals
 of between five and twenty five miles. (One farm in either Northern
 Territories, or Western Australia can be the home of up to a dozen
 different First Nation languages.)

  Pragmatically that means using an exact -3 if you have it (i.e. the
 exact language match);

 relying on the nearest ‘above’ -5 language family identifier when there
 is no -3 match to be had; and ONLY in the -5 case add whatever you can,
 e.g. the glottolog identifier, to refine it.

 That helps with most minority languages. There are some that glottolog
 won't define a code for, on the grounds that they are, for all practical
 purposes, extinct.

  or something along those lines. And discourage -1 and 3166 use; though
 permit it in :other if there is no glottolog entry

 That makes things easy.



Two things:

1. I have no idea what anyone in this thread is talking about, but it does
sound important.

2.  I am tremendously proud that we have such knowledge and talent in our
community helping us take care of i18n issues like this.

Thanks!

-Rob




 Now to delve into a couple of spelling and grammar checkers, and change
 them to those criteria.

 And then submit the RFEs for those language/locales.

 jonathon




Re: Draft Blog Post: Authoring e-Books in Apache OpenOffice: An Interview with Jon Holdsworth

2015-05-13 Thread Rob Weir
Thanks, all, for the feedback.   The live version of the post is now
available here:
https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/authoring_e_books_in_apache


Regards,

-Rob

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:40 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org
wrote:

 Rob Weir wrote:


 https://blogs.apache.org/roller-ui/authoring/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=authoring_e_books_in_apache
 That requires an editor account for the blog to read.  I though there
 was an easy way to rewrite the URL so the preview was public, but that
 does not seem to be working for me.


 There used to be. But it disappeared at some point last year.

  In any case, this is an interview with an author who used AOO for a
 book he recently wrote and has some nice technical hints on how to
 accomplish this with OpenOffice.   This should be of interest to many
 of our users/


 It's a very interesting story, even if the post is quite long. You
 probably meant Melbourne. I would suggest that for the two recommended
 extensions we link to their page on the Extensions site, so that readers
 can try them without further searches.

 Regards,
   Andrea.


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




Draft Blog Post: Authoring e-Books in Apache OpenOffice: An Interview with Jon Holdsworth

2015-05-11 Thread Rob Weir
https://blogs.apache.org/roller-ui/authoring/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=authoring_e_books_in_apache

That requires an editor account for the blog to read.  I though there
was an easy way to rewrite the URL so the preview was public, but that
does not seem to be working for me.

In any case, this is an interview with an author who used AOO for a
book he recently wrote and has some nice technical hints on how to
accomplish this with OpenOffice.   This should be of interest to many
of our users/

-Rob

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



Re: Some old OOo SVN dumps, of use to anyone?

2015-03-06 Thread Rob Weir
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Thorsten Behrens
t...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
 Rob Weir wrote:
 On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
  I agree with this -- it's history for every derivative of OO.o, not just
  AOO.

 It is not exactly the syllabic nucleus of the Vulcan language, but it
 could be useful.   If someone can offer a better long-term place for
 this, please chime in.

 Hi Rob, *,

 sharing the responsibility for preserving the code history of the
 former OpenOffice.org project, TDF would be happy to help keeping
 those legacy repos publicly available for posterity.

 It is indeed of great help for ongoing development, to be able to
 re-trace the history of individual code changes.


This is good to know.  We have now several offers to host/preserve the
data.  First step, for me at least, is to get a copy of the dump of to
Dennis.   He's volunteered to take a closer look and compare to what
Herbert has.   If it ends up what I have is important then we can
discuss the best way to distribute it further.

Regards,

-Rob


 Best,

 -- Thorsten

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



Re: Some old OOo SVN dumps, of use to anyone?

2015-03-02 Thread Rob Weir
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Herbert Duerr h...@apache.org wrote:
 On 2015-02-28 23:05, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

 Rob Weir wrote:

 It could be
 even more useful, of course, if hosted as an actual (read-only)
 repository, to consult the history of the code base.


 Isn't this part of Herbert's big git repo with the whole code history
 that it was possible to reconstruct?


 Yes, my git repository of the AOO/OOo history [1] also contains the import
 of the then available latest OOo-SVN repo. The old OOo project only used SVN
 from 2008 to 2009 and though the SVN repo had imported a few CVS branches
 the most interesting ones (e.g. all the CVS child-workspace branches where
 the actual development happened between 2003-2008) were dropped during that
 import and due to the way things were merged many interesting commit details
 were dropped too.

 These interesting parts of the old OOo-CVS history were also recovered and
 put into my git repo. The 2009-2011 code history in Mercurial and the
 2011-2014/01 AOO history are also included. For more details please see my
 last year's FOSDEM presentation [2].

 [1] http://people.apache.org/~hdu/HistOOory_lastest.zip
 [2] http://people.apache.org/~hdu/HistOOory_Presentation.pdf


Any idea why your ZIP is only 2GB, but my dump is 150GB?   Even when I
zip my svndump file it is still 21GB.   So I wonder if I have
something different or more than what you have.   Or is git really
that much more efficient at storing a revision history?

Regards.

-Rob


 If it's already there, nice; if not, ideally it should be merged with it.


 It should already be there, but somebody please check it with some samples.
 For a more complete history the bit git repo should be updated with the
 latest AOO progress. And the mercurial import could be redone with hg-hash
 annotations enabled too.

 Hope that helps,
 Herbert


 -
 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: Some old OOo SVN dumps, of use to anyone?

2015-03-02 Thread Rob Weir
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
 Oh, duh ...

 @rob,

  I can send you a 500GB USB drive or even a 1.5TB SATA drive.  Not sure what 
 format you could put on it, assuming you run Linux.  NTFS is preferable but 
 FAT32 might work on the USB drive.  Sometimes there are filename 
 incompatibilities (such as : in filenames in an SVN).


If you want a copy, send me your mailing address off list.   I can zip
it down so it can fit onto a 32GB SD Card, and I have plenty of those.
  That's probably the economical way of send this.

Regards,

-Rob


  - Dennis

 -Original Message-
 From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
 Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2015 12:29
 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
 Subject: RE: Some old OOo SVN dumps, of use to anyone?


 orcmid
Is the source code in this SVN identified as LGPL, along with
any THIRDPARTY notice in the manner that Sun provided those?

This strikes me as sufficient to distribute it or house it
somewhere.

Whether the Computer History Museum would preserve
such a thing seems possible, simply in compliance with the
licenses that apply to the source.  It would be up to
their officials whether to do that or not.  I have had a
couple of contacts there.  I will ask about this case.

Meanwhile, there are a couple of things we could try to
preserve the file(s) off-premise for you.  I can provide
you with an FTP account and a folder location if you want
to try putting it on a web location I have, although I
Think installing it as an SVN reload might be best.  I'd
Have to learn how to bring up SVN there, though.

Another way would be to put it on OneDrive.  I'm told I
have 1TB available.  It probably can't go up as
a single file, though, and it could be tedious to break
up.

Other thoughts?
 /orcmid


 -
 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: Some old OOo SVN dumps, of use to anyone?

2015-03-01 Thread Rob Weir
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
 In addition to the other options for preserving the old SVN dumps mentioned 
 in the attachment, it is also possible to supply the files to the Computer 
 History Museum in Mountain View, California.

  This will not make them available on-line, but it will preserve them in 
 their catalog and have them available for use by historians and researchers.  
 This is a means of preservation as a backstop to any approach that also 
 provides access but is vulnerable to obsolescence.

 Although CHM mostly collects gear and papers, they also collect software and 
 have been known to scrape web sites of individuals in order to preserve those 
 and their downloads.  (They also collect verbal history through video 
 interviews, such as their series of interviews with Donald Knuth.  I believe 
 Grady Booch did their interview with John Backus, and there are doubtless 
 others, such as Sir Tony Hoare.)

 I'm not clear what protocol is required to make a clean contribution in the 
 case of the OO.o SVN though.


I don't claim to have sufficient IP rights to make a formal donation
of this code.

 @Rob: You put in a great effort to make the SVN that was loaded as part of 
 the Oracle grant.  Does this include that work or is this something else that 
 you found in the OO.o materials?


As I understand it, the OOo source code went through the following systems:

1) Whatever was used at Star Division before Sun bought it

2) The original open source contribution, which apparently used CVS

3) The OOo migration to SVN

4) Later OOo migration to Mercurial

5) Migration to SVN at Apache and git at LO

The work I did to get the source code into AOO was to get the tip of
the Mercurial tree and check that into Apache's SVN.   We were not
able to find a way to migrate the Mercurial history.

I think what I have here is the SVN from 3) above.  In particular I
see comments in the dump regarding the initial migration from CVS to
SVN.

It looks like there already is a Mercurial dump online:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201110.mbox/%3Cj6efbr$utv$1...@dough.gmane.org%3E

So the advantage of the older OOo SVN dump would be to extend the
revision history back to 2000.

Regards,

-Rob


  - Dennis

 -Original Message-
 From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
 Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 14:11
 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
 Subject: RE: Some old OOo SVN dumps, of use to anyone?

  -- replying inline to --
 From: Rob Weir [mailto:r...@robweir.com]
 Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:38
 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
 Subject: Re: Some old OOo SVN dumps, of use to anyone?

 On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
 On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:


 IMHO this is an invaluable source of our history that we shouldn't loose.


 I agree with this -- it's history for every derivative of OO.o, not just
 AOO.


 Please save it at a location where it cannot be deleted by accident. So,
 the best would be indeed somewhere on a server/disk that is
 controlled/accessible at apache.org.


 One issue may be licensing, as the work stored on Rob's disk was not the
 one approved by Oracle to be relicensed for use by Apache.  Even if that
 can be resolved, the image probably also includes portions that were not
 included in the code identified for relicensing approval. I'm no expert on
 Apache policies but it seems possible either of those conditions could make
 the file inappropriate for storage by Apache directly.


 It is not exactly the syllabic nucleus of the Vulcan language, but it
 could be useful.   If someone can offer a better long-term place for
 this, please chime in.   An SVN dump file is a text file, so I could
 gzip it down to something a bit smaller, maybe 50 GB.   It could be
 even more useful, of course, if hosted as an actual (read-only)
 repository, to consult the history of the code base.

 I'll hold on to it for now, but note that this is not currently in any
 controlled data center.  It is just sitting at home on a shelf,
 susceptible to the whims of fire, water, wind, the fates and cats.  It
 would be good to get it under suitable curation.

 orcmid
   Three prospects (worst to best?)

   1. I just saw mention of an Apache branch on a file-sharing service,
  not a code repository, but 50GB might be a reach.

   2. I have a web hosting service that promises unlimited storage and
  no bandwidth usage limit (though I think instantaneous bandwidth
  is limited).  They also support CVS, SVN, and GIT, but I think I
  would have to install the SVN myself.  I could easily create an FTP
  account just for transfer and preservation of that specific
  content though.  Not certain about curation.  Just another mirror
  for preservation purposes.

   3. I think SourceForge might be able to swallow

Re: Some old OOo SVN dumps, of use to anyone?

2015-02-28 Thread Rob Weir
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
 On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:


 IMHO this is an invaluable source of our history that we shouldn't loose.


 I agree with this -- it's history for every derivative of OO.o, not just
 AOO.


 Please save it at a location where it cannot be deleted by accident. So,
 the best would be indeed somewhere on a server/disk that is
 controlled/accessible at apache.org.


 One issue may be licensing, as the work stored on Rob's disk was not the
 one approved by Oracle to be relicensed for use by Apache.  Even if that
 can be resolved, the image probably also includes portions that were not
 included in the code identified for relicensing approval. I'm no expert on
 Apache policies but it seems possible either of those conditions could make
 the file inappropriate for storage by Apache directly.


It is not exactly the syllabic nucleus of the Vulcan language, but it
could be useful.   If someone can offer a better long-term place for
this, please chime in.   An SVN dump file is a text file, so I could
gzip it down to something a bit smaller, maybe 50 GB.   It could be
even more useful, of course, if hosted as an actual (read-only)
repository, to consult the history of the code base.

I'll hold on to it for now, but note that this is not currently in any
controlled data center.  It is just sitting at home on a shelf,
susceptible to the whims of fire, water, wind, the fates and cats.  It
would be good to get it under suitable curation.

Regards,

-Rob

 S.

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



Some old OOo SVN dumps, of use to anyone?

2015-02-28 Thread Rob Weir
I was cleaning up my office at home and I found an old external
harddrive with some SVN dumps on them.

One, at around 150 GB,  is a dump of the legacy
http://svn.services.openoffice.org/ooo

It looks like OOo used SVN before Mercurial, and this has file history
from the migration from CVS to SVN in September 2000, if I'm reading
this correctly.

The other dump is of DMake, 67MB.   That might be a filtered version
of the above.

Note: these are the complete SVN dumps, not just an extract of the
tip.If anyone thinks we should preserve this, let me know.
Otherwise I'll reclaim the drive for other uses.

Regards,

-Rob

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



[VOTE][RESULTS] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website

2015-02-23 Thread Rob Weir
[ ] Leave the page as it is.

No one voted for this option

[ ] Make changes in that text parts where the facts are wrong or the
tone does not fit or ASF rules were broken.

4 PMC votes for this option: Rob,Marcus, Kay and Juergen

[ ] Delete the entire page.

3 PMC votes for this option: Dennis, Jan and Dave.


It looks like Andrea is already proposing some revisions, so the
majority option is already in progress,

Regards,

-Rob

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



Re: [Vote] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website

2015-02-19 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
 The page in question is here:

 http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html

 Voting choices are:

 [ ] Leave the page as it is.

 [X ] Make changes in that text parts where the facts are wrong or the
 tone does not fit or ASF rules were broken.

 [ ] Delete the entire page.


 The vote will last for 72-hours.  All are welcome to vote.  PMC votes
 are binding.  Please put comments into the parallel [VOTE][DISCUSS]
 thread.

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



[VOTE][DISCUSS] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website

2015-02-19 Thread Rob Weir
Thread for discussion

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



Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.

2015-02-19 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:29 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
 On Thursday, February 19, 2015, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:

 I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use
 as every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry.



 As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too
 aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the disclaimer
 to the top, made it red and used Jan's wording as template to make it
 hopefully clear what it is.

 At least for the moment, the intension about the page should be clear now.

 THANKS.



 But the following is still not clear. Unless it is not clarified IMHO we
 are discussing in circles:

 - Who is it that do not like the content?

 among others
 jim who is v.p. legal and talk on behalf of the foundation in this case
 myself

 - How many people do we speak about since the webpage is online?

 not a lot, but point is v.p.  legal of apache feel we break rules, and that
 os more important than the numbers

 - Which text parts are exacly wrong or just badly described?

 I think (renark the word) that it is because we compare licences. ASF At
 large do not do this kind of comparing, and definitively not at project
 level.


 rob@ I am +1 on calling a vote, but I eould realky prefer we could settle
 this without, a vote builds fronts and we need a lot more to work together.

 I have offered 2 solutions, including being very flexible in the wording of
 the disclaimer, I will leave it up to you to either call a vote or work
 with us all to find a solution.


If there is consensus on the disclaimer then I'm fine with that.   If
someone has a better way of arguing the benefits of ALv2 in this
context, then that's fine as well.   My -1 is only on let's just
delete Rob's work because I'm annoyed by too many emails about it.
And, as I've said, I'll accept the results of a PMC vote over my veto.
  And needless to say, my veto on deletion implies my willingness to
help implement an alternative approach, if we can agree on what would
be acceptable.

-Rob

 Please suggest a compromise, that satisfies people like jim (in short keep
 ASF happy) and is something you can accept. i am easy, if ASF is happy I am
 happy.

 tgds
 jan i



 Thanks

 Marcus



 Am 02/19/2015 04:10 PM, schrieb jan i:

 Hi.

 We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which
 seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people.

 There are of course people who do not like the page because they would
 like
 another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as
 the page we produce are correct).

 There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily
 be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO.

 The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has
 been added:
 

 *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or
 advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of
 licenses.*
 Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion
 of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer
 and being on the bottom many do not even read it.

 We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should
 we
 have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to
 the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk
 about
 a lot of mails).

 I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of
 discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on
 top of the page saying something like:
 This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC
 would at least stop the negative discussions.


 Thoughts?


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



 --
 Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

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



Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.

2015-02-19 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
 I need to posting on the top because I don't know which one I should use as
 every 3 minutes new postings are coming. Sorry.



 As it is still not clear if we discuss about that the content is too
 aggressive or just the disclaimer is too unclear, I've moved the disclaimer
 to the top, made it red and used Jan's wording as template to make it
 hopefully clear what it is.

 At least for the moment, the intension about the page should be clear now.

 But the following is still not clear. Unless it is not clarified IMHO we are
 discussing in circles:

 - Who is it that do not like the content?
 - How many people do we speak about since the webpage is online?
 - Which text parts are exacly wrong or just badly described?


In other words, there is no consensus yet.  Even the disclaimer itself
represents the opinion of individuals and not the view of the PMC.

-Rob


 Thanks

 Marcus



 Am 02/19/2015 04:10 PM, schrieb jan i:

 Hi.

 We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which
 seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people.

 There are of course people who do not like the page because they would
 like
 another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as
 the page we produce are correct).

 There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily
 be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO.

 The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has
 been added:
 

 *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or
 advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of
 licenses.*
 Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion
 of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer
 and being on the bottom many do not even read it.

 We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should
 we
 have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to
 the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk
 about
 a lot of mails).

 I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of
 discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on
 top of the page saying something like:
 This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC
 would at least stop the negative discussions.


 Thoughts?


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


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



Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.

2015-02-19 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi.

 We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which
 seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people.

 There are of course people who do not like the page because they would like
 another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as
 the page we produce are correct).

 There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too easily
 be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO.

 The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has
 been added:
 

 *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or
 advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of
 licenses.*
 Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the opinion
 of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer
 and being on the bottom many do not even read it.

 We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should we
 have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to
 the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk about
 a lot of mails).

 I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of
 discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on
 top of the page saying something like:
 This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC
 would at least stop the negative discussions.


 Thoughts?


What exactly on this page do you think is an opinion and not a fact?
Maybe we can focus on the specifics?

I'd note also that this is one page of several, each of which the same
accusation can be made.   For example:

OpenOffice can be freely used and distributed with no license worries.

http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_edu.html

Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC
voting on it?  Should we remove this page as well?


And:

Using Apache OpenOffice demonstrates your commitment to deliver best
value services. It is not owned by any commercial organisation. Its
open source license means there are no license fees to pay, no
expensive annual audits, and no worries about non-compliance with
onerous and obscure licensing conditions. You may also distribute the
software free to your employees, through the schools system, or any
other channel of your choice.

http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_gov.html

Same idea, claiming that the licence of AOO is an advantage, in this
case to government users.


And:


And

OpenOffice offers a high degree of compatibility with commercial
office software, but with none of the costs or license worries.

http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_sme.html


Same idea there.


And


http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_odf.html

This page claims advantages of using ODF.   Certainly this is an
opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it?  Should
we remove this page as well?


I'm a bit puzzled why we suddenly think that expressing a viewpoint or
touting advantages of AOO is unusual or suspect.   It should not be
odd to remark that the licence *mandatory* for use by Apache projects
is in some way preferable to the licence that is *forbidden* for use
in all Apache projects.   It should not be seen as controversial to
note that.

So a -1 from be for removing any of these pages.   If you want a more
prominent disclaimer on *all* of them, then I'm fine with that.

Regards,

-Rob


 rgds
 jan I.

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



Re: New Contributor Looking for Directory Information

2015-02-19 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Patrick Lynn plynn...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi, my name is Patrick Lynn and I am a student at College of Charleston who
 is working on bug fixes for AOO this semester with my team. We have
 familiarized ourselves with the bug system but I was wondering if their is
 any information on the folder layout of AOO. As it stands whenever we find
 a bug that seems reasonably easy to fix we don't have the faintest idea
 where in the code it would be as there are a ton of folders and we aren't
 sure how the code is distributed among them. I'm not even sure where to
 look at just the code for Writer. If there is some document that details
 the contents of the folder system it would be much appreciated.

 If there isn't, what would be your best suggestion for navigating the code?

Hi Patrick, the expertise on the mailing list is better than the
documentation on the website.   So the easiest thing would be to send
a note to the mailing list linking to the issue you want to fix and
ask for hints on how to work on it.

Regards,

-Rob

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



Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.

2015-02-19 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
 On 19 February 2015 at 18:22, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
  On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
 
  On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com
 wrote:
   On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org
  wrote:
  
   Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more
   agreeable content on it.
  
  
   That sounds smart to me, +1.
  
   I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1]
  misrepresentation -
   maybe he has comments on what the project should do here?
 
  Let me put it like this without disclosing content of mails from private
  lists,  Jim is also AOO PMC member and has given good advice.
 
  My recommendation follow that advice.
 

 I'm a PMC member as well.  I trust my -1 has been noted.

 
  
 
  Hi Simon,
 
  Rather than put it off to someone else, maybe you as an esteemed
  project contributor can help with some suitable replacement content.
  Why do you think the ASF mandates the ALv2 and forbids GPL?   Surely
  it is not merely some bit of arcane religious dogma that we practice
  out of blind devotion, without knowing any reason why.   So in your
  personal opinion, as a project member, why do we prefer ALv2?   And
  how can we best express these benefits to potential users?
 
  Changing the content, does not change the fact about whose opinion it
 is !
 
  I have already made one proposal as to how a disclaimer placed at top
 could
  look like.
  This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC
 


 I assumed that was a placeholder.  Abbreviations like ASF and AOO
 and PMC  will not be understood by a random visitor. And beyond the
 abbreviations very few visitors will understand what the ASF is, what
 the PMC is, how they relate, etc.   This is a kind of disclaimer that
 causes more confusion.

 I know that you've avoided actually reading or understanding the page
 but I'd highly recommend trying to understand that page in context.
 Something like 80% of the visitors to that page reach it from search
 (Google or Bing).  Aside from a few Apache and FSF insiders writhing
 in anguish over this page, almost everyone who sees it comes to it
 without any deep knowledge of how the ASF works.  So I think any
 disclaimer would need to be written in a form that is clear to them.


 you might be right that my proposal is not the best one, but to have a
 proposal is better that not have any, and I am not touchy about other
 wordings.


I appreciate that.  I'm just saying 1) We don't have a statement ready
to drop in yet and 2) We probably want to get it into final form
before doing so since it will need translation.

 I am not a license specialist nor do I want to be, but I think our project
 should not talk about other licenses, let others do that.

 Apart from that, ASF and not AOO is the one who decides on licenses, so
 that would be the right place to have such a page.
 But from what I understand from a number of conversations, ASF tries by
 principle not to talk a lot about others, f.x. you will not find
 an ASF page that compares different foundations and the ASF page about
 licenses explain how ALv2 works nothing more.

 I simply do not see the need that AOO goes out alone, on confrontation
 course with ASF, to explain the difference in licenses seen specifically
 for our pow. We do not need this kind of pointing fingers. Let other
 projects use the license they believe in and let us use the license ASF
 believe in without telling we are better or even different than the others.


Clearly there is disagreement on this question and we've seen views on
both sides, including PMC members.  Considering we're no longer
debating facts but opinions, maybe just start a 72-hour PMC vote on
whether to delete the page.   I'd accept the results of the vote, even
over my -1.


Regards,

-Rob


 rgds
 jan I.



 -Rob


  rgds
  jan I.
 
 
  Thanks!
 
  -Rob
 
   S.
  
   [1]:
  
 
 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/%3CB5FAC1D8-332E-48FD-A495-5E5C9255A859%40jaguNET.com%3E
 
  -
  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
 
 

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



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



Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS] What should we do with the Why Compliance? page on the website

2015-02-19 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
 Rob Weir wrote:

 Thread for discussion


 Come on, what's this? Do you guys read this list? We had this conversation
 earlier this month, not ages ago. It ended like this:

 http://markmail.org/message/2ae5vrtevxyizaje


Unfortunately we have a party who wants to steamroll through a fast
delete unless I immediately show proof of consensus for another
option. From what I've been able to ascertain a vote is the only
acceptable proof.  Personally, I'd be happy to look at your eventual
version.  I think many others would as well.   The vote does not
really change that.

Regards,

-Rob

 [Andrea] The page provides relevant information in a bad way. It is by
 keeping it as it is that we play the game of haters. I'll propose a rewrite
 next weekend.

 Now, weekends do not last 5 days, unfortunately, and life on the OpenOffice
 lists has been more eventful than I expected. But I very much prefer that
 instead of flooding the list as a handful of people did in the last few
 hours, someone would remember this and either say that we were still waiting
 for my rewrite or that they were replacing me in the task since I'm clearly
 late. But voting on the abstract option of replacing the page which
 something that doesn't exist does not really make a lot of sense to me.

 And it sounds too much like the usual we talk about something expecting
 that someone else does the work that I'd like we abandon.

 Well, my offer to rewrite it remains valid... but you'll have to be patient
 until next weekend!

 Regards,
   Andrea.


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


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



Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.

2015-02-19 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:51 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
 On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
  Hi.
 
  We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html which
  seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people.
 
  There are of course people who do not like the page because they would
 like
  another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as long as
  the page we produce are correct).
 
  There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too
 easily
  be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO.
 
  The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom has
  been added:
  
 
  *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on, recommend or
  advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or family of
  licenses.*
  Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the
 opinion
  of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal disclaimer
  and being on the bottom many do not even read it.
 
  We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor should
 we
  have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot refer to
  the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk
 about
  a lot of mails).
 
  I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this kind of
  discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a statement on
  top of the page saying something like:
  This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC
  would at least stop the negative discussions.
 
 
  Thoughts?
 

 What exactly on this page do you think is an opinion and not a fact?
 Maybe we can focus on the specifics?

 I'd note also that this is one page of several, each of which the same
 accusation can be made.   For example:

 OpenOffice can be freely used and distributed with no license worries.

 http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_edu.html

 Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC
 voting on it?  Should we remove this page as well?


 And:

 Using Apache OpenOffice demonstrates your commitment to deliver best
 value services. It is not owned by any commercial organisation. Its
 open source license means there are no license fees to pay, no
 expensive annual audits, and no worries about non-compliance with
 onerous and obscure licensing conditions. You may also distribute the
 software free to your employees, through the schools system, or any
 other channel of your choice.

 http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_gov.html

 Same idea, claiming that the licence of AOO is an advantage, in this
 case to government users.


 And:


 And

 OpenOffice offers a high degree of compatibility with commercial
 office software, but with none of the costs or license worries.

 http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_sme.html


 Same idea there.


 And


 http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_odf.html

 This page claims advantages of using ODF.   Certainly this is an
 opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it?  Should
 we remove this page as well?


 I'm a bit puzzled why we suddenly think that expressing a viewpoint or
 touting advantages of AOO is unusual or suspect.   It should not be
 odd to remark that the licence *mandatory* for use by Apache projects
 is in some way preferable to the licence that is *forbidden* for use
 in all Apache projects.   It should not be seen as controversial to
 note that.


 To me life is quite simple, I get email from apache people I respect and
 know what they stand for, saying this page gives a false impression,
 not in terms of facts, but in terms of whose opinions are expressed.

 When my inbox start filling with such mails, I tend to take a look
 myself...and in this case I find it correct that the page looks as being
 the opinion of ASF and AOO unless you are a lawyer and read the bottom line
 carefully.

 I am not in a position to discuss the actual content, and that it really
 not the discussion point.

 We have enough other problems, we do not need to create morewe do not
 need to make Apache friends of the project negative by not following a
 simple recommendation. It is a lot better that we show responsibility and
 act instead of running the risk, that we get told what to do.


The current disclaimer was added after a discussion on the
legal-discuss mailing list (public) to make it clear that it was not
an ASF statement.   As I understand it is now entirely a PMC question
and there is no one who will tell us what to do.


 So a -1 from be for removing any of these pages.   If you want a more
 prominent disclaimer on *all* of them, then I'm fine with that.


 I have no opinion on that the *all* part, if you think that gives a better
 result then I am all for it.


If someone wants to suggest a disclaimer that can be put on all the
why pages, then let's see it.Since

Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.

2015-02-19 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
 On 19 February 2015 at 17:54, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
  On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org
 wrote:
 
  Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more
  agreeable content on it.
 
 
  That sounds smart to me, +1.
 
  I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1]
 misrepresentation -
  maybe he has comments on what the project should do here?

 Let me put it like this without disclosing content of mails from private
 lists,  Jim is also AOO PMC member and has given good advice.

 My recommendation follow that advice.


I'm a PMC member as well.  I trust my -1 has been noted.


 

 Hi Simon,

 Rather than put it off to someone else, maybe you as an esteemed
 project contributor can help with some suitable replacement content.
 Why do you think the ASF mandates the ALv2 and forbids GPL?   Surely
 it is not merely some bit of arcane religious dogma that we practice
 out of blind devotion, without knowing any reason why.   So in your
 personal opinion, as a project member, why do we prefer ALv2?   And
 how can we best express these benefits to potential users?

 Changing the content, does not change the fact about whose opinion it is !

 I have already made one proposal as to how a disclaimer placed at top could
 look like.
 This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC



I assumed that was a placeholder.  Abbreviations like ASF and AOO
and PMC  will not be understood by a random visitor. And beyond the
abbreviations very few visitors will understand what the ASF is, what
the PMC is, how they relate, etc.   This is a kind of disclaimer that
causes more confusion.

I know that you've avoided actually reading or understanding the page
but I'd highly recommend trying to understand that page in context.
Something like 80% of the visitors to that page reach it from search
(Google or Bing).  Aside from a few Apache and FSF insiders writhing
in anguish over this page, almost everyone who sees it comes to it
without any deep knowledge of how the ASF works.  So I think any
disclaimer would need to be written in a form that is clear to them.


-Rob


 rgds
 jan I.


 Thanks!

 -Rob

  S.
 
  [1]:
 
 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/%3CB5FAC1D8-332E-48FD-A495-5E5C9255A859%40jaguNET.com%3E

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



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



Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.

2015-02-19 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote:
 On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:51 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
  On 19 February 2015 at 16:32, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
 
  On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
   Hi.
  
   We have a page http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html
 which
   seems to be like a red carpet to a number of people.
  
   There are of course people who do not like the page because they would
  like
   another license to have the headline, they are not my concern (as
 long as
   the page we produce are correct).
  
   There are also people (myself included) that feel this page can too
  easily
   be misread as expressing the view of ASF and AOO.
  
   The page has lately been changed and among other a line at the bottom
 has
   been added:
   
  
   *The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position on,
 recommend or
   advise the use or non-use of any particular software license or
 family of
   licenses.*
   Surely that is enough in legal terms indicate that the page is the
  opinion
   of somebody not ASF. But for many they see this as the normal
 disclaimer
   and being on the bottom many do not even read it.
  
   We as a project cannot and should not speak on behalf of ASF, nor
 should
  we
   have web pages that causes longer negative discussions (I cannot
 refer to
   the mails on private@ and elsewhere, but only say that lately we talk
  about
   a lot of mails).
  
   I, as PMC member, do not see the need for a page that causes this
 kind of
   discussions, and would prefer to see it removedhowever a
 statement on
   top of the page saying something like:
   This page do not reflect the opinion of ASF or the AOO PMC
   would at least stop the negative discussions.
  
  
   Thoughts?
  
 
  What exactly on this page do you think is an opinion and not a fact?
  Maybe we can focus on the specifics?
 
  I'd note also that this is one page of several, each of which the same
  accusation can be made.   For example:
 
  OpenOffice can be freely used and distributed with no license worries.
 
  http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_edu.html
 
  Certainly this is an opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC
  voting on it?  Should we remove this page as well?
 
 
  And:
 
  Using Apache OpenOffice demonstrates your commitment to deliver best
  value services. It is not owned by any commercial organisation. Its
  open source license means there are no license fees to pay, no
  expensive annual audits, and no worries about non-compliance with
  onerous and obscure licensing conditions. You may also distribute the
  software free to your employees, through the schools system, or any
  other channel of your choice.
 
  http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_gov.html
 
  Same idea, claiming that the licence of AOO is an advantage, in this
  case to government users.
 
 
  And:
 
 
  And
 
  OpenOffice offers a high degree of compatibility with commercial
  office software, but with none of the costs or license worries.
 
  http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_sme.html
 
 
  Same idea there.
 
 
  And
 
 
  http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_odf.html
 
  This page claims advantages of using ODF.   Certainly this is an
  opinion, and I don't recall the ASF or the PMC voting on it?  Should
  we remove this page as well?
 
 
  I'm a bit puzzled why we suddenly think that expressing a viewpoint or
  touting advantages of AOO is unusual or suspect.   It should not be
  odd to remark that the licence *mandatory* for use by Apache projects
  is in some way preferable to the licence that is *forbidden* for use
  in all Apache projects.   It should not be seen as controversial to
  note that.
 
 
  To me life is quite simple, I get email from apache people I respect and
  know what they stand for, saying this page gives a false impression,
  not in terms of facts, but in terms of whose opinions are expressed.
 
  When my inbox start filling with such mails, I tend to take a look
  myself...and in this case I find it correct that the page looks as being
  the opinion of ASF and AOO unless you are a lawyer and read the bottom
 line
  carefully.
 
  I am not in a position to discuss the actual content, and that it really
  not the discussion point.
 
  We have enough other problems, we do not need to create morewe do not
  need to make Apache friends of the project negative by not following a
  simple recommendation. It is a lot better that we show responsibility and
  act instead of running the risk, that we get told what to do.
 

 The current disclaimer was added after a discussion on the
 legal-discuss mailing list (public) to make it clear that it was not
 an ASF statement.   As I understand it is now entirely a PMC question
 and there is no one who will tell us what to do.

 
  So a -1 from be for removing any of these pages.   If you want a more

Re: Proposal to change or remove a web page that seems to cause unfruitful discussions.

2015-02-19 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
 On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote:

 Why not just take it down, and re-publish it when there is a more
 agreeable content on it.


 That sounds smart to me, +1.

 I note that on legal-discuss Jim [called the page][1] misrepresentation -
 maybe he has comments on what the project should do here?


Hi Simon,

Rather than put it off to someone else, maybe you as an esteemed
project contributor can help with some suitable replacement content.
Why do you think the ASF mandates the ALv2 and forbids GPL?   Surely
it is not merely some bit of arcane religious dogma that we practice
out of blind devotion, without knowing any reason why.   So in your
personal opinion, as a project member, why do we prefer ALv2?   And
how can we best express these benefits to potential users?


Thanks!

-Rob

 S.

 [1]:
 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201502.mbox/%3CB5FAC1D8-332E-48FD-A495-5E5C9255A859%40jaguNET.com%3E

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



Re: Download stats update

2015-02-08 Thread Rob Weir
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote:
 I notice that the stats havent been update to 2015. We are already on
 February and 2015 don't show up in the scale.I would expect at least a 5%
 of the graph to belong to 2015.


I've been updating the stats occasionally, using the scripts here:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/devtools/aoo-stats/

Only the querying from SourceForge is automated.  The update of the
CSV file that produces the chart is still manual.

If you want to give it a try, I'm happy to answer any questions.
Otherwise it is easy for me to update this.

Regards,

-Rob


 If there is a way to manually update these stats, I could try to do the
 work.

 --
 Alexandro Colorado
 Apache OpenOffice Contributor
 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9  5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614

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



Re: Download stats update

2015-02-08 Thread Rob Weir
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote:
 On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:

 On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote:
  I notice that the stats havent been update to 2015. We are already on
  February and 2015 don't show up in the scale.I would expect at least a 5%
  of the graph to belong to 2015.
 

 I've been updating the stats occasionally, using the scripts here:

 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/devtools/aoo-stats/

 Only the querying from SourceForge is automated.  The update of the
 CSV file that produces the chart is still manual.

 If you want to give it a try, I'm happy to answer any questions.
 Otherwise it is easy for me to update this.


 Well I have two, one was for the final URL that the script needed from
 Sourceforge?
 The other question is related, but as I look on SF API seems this is for a
 single file download, and I wonder how to concurrently do all of the files
 from the release.



The detail-by-day.py script is the one you want.   You'll also need to
all.lst data file from the same directory.  It is a list of all the
program file downloads on SF for AOO, for all releases.

You run like:

python detail-by-day.py all.lst start-date end-date

for example:

python detail-by-day.py all.lst 2015-01-01 2015-02-01 out.csv

You can then load the CSV file into Calc and do calculations from there.

Regards,

-Rob



 However, I tried this with the detail-by-day.py script which required the
 SF URL, however if this script you showed me dont need any arguments (URL
 or date limits) I guess it would be fine.

 I tested the get-aoo-stats.py but also ask me for a list of URLs (I assume
 these are for each file from the release). If you can provide a sample dump
 for the current release, it would be good enough for me.

 get-aoo-stats.py
 syntax:  python get-aoo-stats.py urls.lst iso-date [iso-date]
 where file.list is a list of files URL's to gather stats on,
 and iso-date is a date of interest, in -MM-DD format.
 If two dates are given this expresses a range of dates.





 Regards,

 -Rob


  If there is a way to manually update these stats, I could try to do the
  work.
 
  --
  Alexandro Colorado
  Apache OpenOffice Contributor
  882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9  5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614

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




 --
 Alexandro Colorado
 Apache OpenOffice Contributor
 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9  5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614

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



Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

2015-02-05 Thread Rob Weir
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
 On 31 December 2014 I wrote to this list that I would be available to resign
 from the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair position as soon as a successor could
 be elected. A previous vote was cancelled. For this second vote we have two
 candidates: Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) and Jan Iversen (jani).

 In my capacity as the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair, I will submit a
 resolution to the Board asking to be replaced by the most voted of the two
 candidates. Since candidates are not on the OpenOffice PMC, the winning
 candidate will automatically be elected to the OpenOffice PMC too (assuming
 we have the needed participation and consensus). I am not available to stay
 in my role.

 Who of the two candidates do you prefer to replace Andrea Pescetti as the
 OpenOffice project PMC Chair?
 [ ] Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid)
 [ ] Jan Iversen (jani)


 [ x] Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid)


 Vote opens now and it will last one week, until 6 February 2015 7:00 PM GMT,
 to give all community members the opportunity to participate. The resolution
 will be submitted to the Board in time for the February meeting (18 February
 2015).

 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: From user on Facebook, saying BestBuy is telling users OpenOffice has viruses

2015-02-02 Thread Rob Weir
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
 Am 02/02/2015 09:15 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:

 https://www.facebook.com/ApacheOO/posts/846449215413957

 Not sure what we can do about this, or if it is widespread.  I hope it
 is not a general attitude against open source at BestBuy, the largest
 nationwide electronics retailer in America.

 But I do wonder if they have a bad feeling regarding open source after


 in the article they was just a single user. Or should I say a sales clerk?


A few years ago there was a report that sales clerks at this retailer
were being trained to tell customers to avoid open source:

http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/09/07/best.buy.told.to.misrepresent.linux/

Regards,

-Rob


 Either she has made a personal bad experience with OpenOffice because she
 downloaded the software from the wrong website, or heard it from someone
 else and now takes it over as her opinion or (what I believe) she is just an
 average seller with lousy arguments: bashing product A to sell product B, C
 ... ;-)

 being sued by the SFLC over GPL violations a few years ago:


 http://www.informationweek.com/software/operating-systems/open-source-group-sues-consumer-electronics-companies/d/d-id/1085572?


 Also in the law case the mistake was to sell a product with GPL-based open
 source software but *not* to put the source code with the product like it
 has to be to fulfill the conditions of the GPL license.

 This is one reason I think it is important to have a page on our
 website that explains that Apache OpenOffice has a permissive license
 and does not have these same risks.


 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



From user on Facebook, saying BestBuy is telling users OpenOffice has viruses

2015-02-02 Thread Rob Weir
https://www.facebook.com/ApacheOO/posts/846449215413957

Not sure what we can do about this, or if it is widespread.  I hope it
is not a general attitude against open source at BestBuy, the largest
nationwide electronics retailer in America.

But I do wonder if they have a bad feeling regarding open source after
being sued by the SFLC over GPL violations a few years ago:

http://www.informationweek.com/software/operating-systems/open-source-group-sues-consumer-electronics-companies/d/d-id/1085572?

This is one reason I think it is important to have a page on our
website that explains that Apache OpenOffice has a permissive license
and does not have these same risks.

Regards,

-Rob

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



Re: Redistribution

2015-02-02 Thread Rob Weir
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Roglap est...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 Hi,
 We understand that we can distribute the software OppenOffice according to 
 the legal conditions.


 It is possible work with Adwords campaigns to publish the your browser?


The process for requesting permission to use our trademarks is here:

http://openoffice.apache.org/trademarks.html

Since we are a non-profit charity, we'd want to know how the trademark
use would be in the public benefit.   This might be a hard argument to
make, considering that our www.openoffice.org website is already at
the top of the search engine results for the most relevant searches.

Regards,

-Rob

 Thanks a lot

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs

2015-02-02 Thread Rob Weir
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
 On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:

 On 30/01/2015 Rob Weir wrote:

 1) Companies that use commercially licensed software are exposed to
 compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense.
 2) Companies that use copyleft software are also exposed to compliance
 risk that can be mitigated with time and expense.
 3)  There is a class of open source licenses that represent a middle
 path and avoid much of this risk.  The Apache License is one example.
 4) Apache OpenOffice uses the Apache License, so if you are concerned
 with the cost of license compliance you might want to look further
 into using OpenOffice.
 I'd argue that this is a factual, relevant and appropriate thing for us
 to say.


 The page provides relevant information in a bad way (tone and wording of
 the above list would be OK, for example). It is by keeping it as it is that
 we play the game of haters. I'll propose a rewrite next weekend.


 That sounds a good move, Andrea. However, one question that needs asking is
 why the AOO project (as opoosed to Apache in general) needs this page at
 all. Now that LibreOffice uses the Mozilla license (which is not known for
 compliance risks), which GPL-licensed suite is this page helping users
 avoid?


There is no mention of LO on this page, nor any suggestion of it.
Similarly the why page on ODF does not mention LO nor suggest LO
does not support ODF.   Not everything revolves around LO.IMHO, it
is sufficient to show the advantages of ALv2 for those who are
concerned about this risk.  The fact that such concerns exist is
shown, for example, by coverage in the New York Times about this risk,
  If LO wishes to show how the MPL addresses this risk they are
welcome to put a similar page on their own website.   In fact they
could use our version as a base, since it is available for anyone to
use under ALv2.

-Rob


 S.

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



Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs

2015-01-30 Thread Rob Weir
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 29/01/15 19:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
 I didn't even know about this page, 
 http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html, until I saw an update 
 on the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday.  I glanced at it and didn't think much 
 about it.

 Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is.  I agree.  If 
 you stand back and look at the question from the perspective of someone 
 interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in use, this page is not helpful.  
 Something, if anything, more straightforward and pertinent is called for, 
 based on what it is within our power to provide.  I am grateful to Simon for 
 pointing out how over-reaching this page is.

 The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as an 
 Apache Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized interest as if 
 it matters broadly to adopters of software of various kinds.  The footnote 
 that the ASF does not have such positions should have alerted me farther.

 I have only returned to the dev list for a few months, and I don't recall 
 any discussion about that page and the posture it presents in that period.


 I still don't see the problem with this page and I think it gives some
 interesting information for people who are not so familiar with open
 source software and the different open source licenses.

 It can be seen as background information.

 In the context of the why page it is dos no harm and just provides
 some more information that I find interesting, informative and worse
 reading.



IMHO it should not be considered unusual for an Apache project to have
a page that explains why it thinks that the license that is mandatory
for all Apache releases has some specific benefits over the licenses
that are forbidden in all Apache releases.   It would be odd if we
could not make that argument.

Regards,

-Rob


 If we remove or change this page I believe that simply play the gm of
 other people and do what they want. I can imagine that some some people
 don't like it but this doesn't change the facts that are listed here.

 We have much more important things to do in the project than this and I
 hope we can and will concentrate on these important things.

 Juergen


 SUGGESTION

  1. Remove the page altogether.

  2. Alternatively, perhaps make an affirmative page, if not already 
 adequately covered, about the safe use of the Apache OpenOffice binaries 
 that the project makes available.

 2.1 That there is no requirement for licensing or registration, and that 
 there are no limitations on the redistribution or use of the binaries 
 (perhaps point to the Open Source Definition for more about that if anyone 
 is interested).  This is a question that comes up from time to time and it 
 would be good to have that answered (if not already -- I am not looking 
 around, but I will).  I suppose this could be why_adopt or why_use.  It 
 should also be respectful of the broad community of open-source 
 contributions in this space.  (I am making up why_mumble names just to give 
 the idea of the orientation.)

 2.2 Also point out that, as is the case for open-source software, the 
 source code is always available from the Project.  That source code is 
 available for modification, adaptation, and creating of anyone's own binary 
 distributions so long as the applicable open-source licenses are honored.  
 This should be simple and perhaps link to a why_develop page.

 2.3 The conditions, if any, that might face developers of extensions of 
 various kinds to be used with the AOO binaries might also be mentioned, but 
 just mentioned, and addressed with why_develop and any deep-dive details 
 from there.

 This should all be done as an affirmation of how AOO is an open-source 
 project and what is provided by the project.  It is not ours to explain or 
 describe anecdotally or otherwise the circumstances that that can arise in 
 accord with different licensing models.

 Otherwise, wouldn't we owe it to our users to explain that we provide no 
 indemnification for patent violations that can arise by use of AOO-provided 
 binaries (or source) in a manner where essential claims of some patent are 
 infringed, and they also need to read the Disclaimer in the License?

  -- 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

 PS: I had occasion to say elsewhere that users should not be addressed in 
 order to co-opt them as cannon fodder in someone else's war.  That is 
 usually not helpful, especially considering where most of our users are 
 operating.  For me, we show the value to users of relying on Apache 
 OpenOffice by demonstrating our care for them, whatever they are up to, and 
 how that care is embodied in the distributions that are provided.  What 
 matters 

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs

2015-01-30 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote:
 I didn't even know about this page, 
 http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html, until I saw an update on 
 the Apache ooo-site SVN yesterday.  I glanced at it and didn't think much 
 about it.

 Today, Simon Phipps has pointed out how strange that page is.  I agree.  If 
 you stand back and look at the question from the perspective of someone 
 interested in adopting Apache OpenOffice in use, this page is not helpful.  
 Something, if anything, more straightforward and pertinent is called for, 
 based on what it is within our power to provide.  I am grateful to Simon for 
 pointing out how over-reaching this page is.


It is useful to those who have an interest and concern about license
compliance.   That's the point, to have a keyword-rich page that
places well in search results for those potential users who are
concerned specifically with compliance risk.
intended purpose.

Note:  This is how all the why pages are structured.  They are
single topic pages that delve into a specific reason why someone might
be interested in OpenOffice.  So even if they have no idea that
OpenOffice exists, they will find this page when they search for a
related concern, e.g., ODF, End of Life of Office 2003, free software
for new computers, and, yes, cost of compliance.

You, or anyone else might not care about cost of compliance, or for
that matter, End Of Life of Office 2003.  That's fine.   This page is
not intended for you.  The way to evaluate it is from the perspective
of someone who is researching this topic, the person for whom this is
a topic of interest.   This is an important SEO technique, to make it
possible for those who don't even know that OpenOffice exists, but who
have a problem that we solve, to find our website.


The fact that these are genuine, real-world concerns can be seen from
their coverage in the New York Times and in industry press:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/business/26ping.html?_r=2;

http://www.industryweek.com/software-amp-systems/cost-open-source-licensing-compliance


 The current page speaks to matters that are none of our business as an Apache 
 Project and it somehow raises a matter of specialized interest as if it 
 matters broadly to adopters of software of various kinds.  The footnote that 
 the ASF does not have such positions should have alerted me farther.


Similarly, the ASF does not have a position on public sector
procurement, upgrades to Office 2003 or what file format someone
should use.  On none of these questions does the ASF have an official
stance.  However, these are issues that are of interest to many, and
for which AOO has a good answer, so it is appropriate to have pages
that explain why someone with these concerns might prefer AOO.

Finally, note that we do not place these why pages prominently in
our blog or the front page of the website.   The main intent is to to
be found by someone searching for keywords related to these topics.
It is not intended as as trollbait for the FSF.

Regards,

-Rob

 I have only returned to the dev list for a few months, and I don't recall any 
 discussion about that page and the posture it presents in that period.

 SUGGESTION

  1. Remove the page altogether.

  2. Alternatively, perhaps make an affirmative page, if not already 
 adequately covered, about the safe use of the Apache OpenOffice binaries that 
 the project makes available.

 2.1 That there is no requirement for licensing or registration, and that 
 there are no limitations on the redistribution or use of the binaries 
 (perhaps point to the Open Source Definition for more about that if anyone is 
 interested).  This is a question that comes up from time to time and it would 
 be good to have that answered (if not already -- I am not looking around, but 
 I will).  I suppose this could be why_adopt or why_use.  It should also be 
 respectful of the broad community of open-source contributions in this space. 
  (I am making up why_mumble names just to give the idea of the orientation.)

 2.2 Also point out that, as is the case for open-source software, the 
 source code is always available from the Project.  That source code is 
 available for modification, adaptation, and creating of anyone's own binary 
 distributions so long as the applicable open-source licenses are honored.  
 This should be simple and perhaps link to a why_develop page.

 2.3 The conditions, if any, that might face developers of extensions of 
 various kinds to be used with the AOO binaries might also be mentioned, but 
 just mentioned, and addressed with why_develop and any deep-dive details from 
 there.

 This should all be done as an affirmation of how AOO is an open-source 
 project and what is provided by the project.  It is not ours to explain or 
 describe anecdotally or otherwise the circumstances that that can arise in 
 accord with different licensing models.

 Otherwise, wouldn't 

Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs

2015-01-30 Thread Rob Weir
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote:
 Pedro and Jürgen,

 It is important to be concerned about false contrasts and comparisons.

 There is a risk, when we are essentially preaching to the choir, that we sink 
 into some sort of fundamentalist hyperbole as well.  It is satisfying, it is 
 credible to us, and it can be a mistake.  Facts are more nuanced than 
 portrayed.  It is also unnecessary for the voice of the project to be taken 
 there.  There are many places where such matters can be discussed without 
 embroiling the project.

The page boils down to saying the following:

1) Companies that use commercially licensed software are exposed to
compliance risk that can be mitigated with time and expense.

2) Companies that use copyleft software are also exposed to compliance
risk that can be mitigated with time and expense.

3)  There is a class of open source licenses that represent a middle
path and avoid much of this risk.  The Apache License is one example.

4) Apache OpenOffice uses the Apache License, so if you are concerned
with the cost of license compliance you might want to look further
into using OpenOffice.


I'd argue that this is a factual, relevant and appropriate thing for us to say.

Regards,

-Rob






 A company is certainly not going to learn about the risks of running pirated 
 software here first.  I don't want to get into fine points of how the BSA 
 operates.  Anyone can research the rewards for whistle-blowers on settlement 
 without lawsuits at 
 https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/usa/rewardsconditions.aspx.  My main 
 point is that an AOO stance is insignificant and not informative to someone 
 for whom license management is a serious concern.  Also, the BSA does not 
 pursue individuals using software separate from and outside of their 
 employment.

 It is more important, to me, that there be clarity about what the AOO 
 licensing conditions are and how easy they are to satisfy at essentially no 
 cost.  Comparative cost-benefit is much larger than that single factor.  AOO 
 site and resources could be more helpful in determining how to migrate 
 successfully, though.  That's something where we have an opportunity to act 
 as a contribution to the public interest.

 The business about copy-left versus permissive licenses is evidently what 
 attracted the attention of the legal-discuss list here at the ASF.  I had not 
 known what the actual discussion was at 
 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201501.mbox/browser.
  The conclusion later in that thread led to the footnote on the current 
 version of the page at http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html.  
 (Another list I need to re-subscribe to.)  A still unanswered question from 
 the list is about whose voice this statement is made in.  The footnote says 
 it is not the voice of the ASF.

 It is a matter of firm policy that the ASF does not have anything to say 
 about other (open-source) licenses except with regard to how they are 
 honored, where accepted, in ASF Apache Projects.  The only ASF compliance 
 concern is with the Apache License version 2.0 and the ASF conditions on how 
 the releases and distributions produced by Apache projects honor all 
 governing licenses.  That is more appropriately presented in material 
 addressed to ASF Project developers and potential contributors.  The only 
 advice to adapters of software from ASF Projects is that it is important to 
 observe the licenses that apply.  And that interested parties should look 
 elsewhere for legal advice and assurances.

  - Dennis

 PS: Other circumstances had me learn, recently, that the reason the Chair of 
 the PMC is an Officer of the Foundation is for important legal purposes with 
 regard to the nature of the Foundation and the umbrella it creates for 
 projects under its auspices.  Some of the legal considerations and their 
 honoring are viewed as extending to the PMC as well and the Chair is 
 accountable to the Foundation for that.  The PMC, in addition to its 
 attention on the direction of the project is also governed by some legal 
 requirements.  I know that's pretty abstract, it is for me too.  I expect 
 that Chairs get on-the-job training in such matters.  I surmise that the 
 charge to operate in the public interest and within the parameters the 
 Foundation has defined for fulfilling on that is paramount.


 -Original Message-
 From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org]
 Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 09:03
 To: OOo Apache
 Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate Compliance Costs

 [ ... ]

 I actually don't care about the discussion: I think both permissive
 and copyleft licenses have their advantages and disadvantages for
 certain groups. IANAL and I am in the group that doesn't read
 licenses anyways :).

 I honestly don't think having a compliance costs page will make
 a difference but if it saves some (few) people from learning such
 things 

Re: [Bugzilla] Please add version 4.1.2 to Target field

2015-01-27 Thread Rob Weir
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
 Resending again with modified subject line. Bugzilla admins, if you need
 more admins in the team just call for help.
 Thanks,
   Andrea.


Based on past pattern, we'd add 4.1.2-dev now, and 4.1.2 once that
version has released, yes?

-Rob


 On 14/01/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote:

 Resending since it was probably overlooked and two weeks passed. We need
 4.1.2 in Bugzilla, at least in the Target field.
 Thanks,
Andrea.

 On 29/12/2014 Andrea Pescetti wrote:

 (I'm BCCing the QA list for information)

 So we want to release 4.1.2. The main feature will be warning-free
 digitally signed installers under Windows. Other bugfixes may be
 included as well, provided we can fix them soon, in a safe way and
 provided they are of some significance. As explained, translation fixes
 and (English) string fixes cannot be included.

 First someone with Bugzilla admin privileges should add 4.1.2 to the
 Target Milestone field in Bugzilla. I would not add a flag to request
 a blocker, unless someone prefers to have it too.  ...


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



 -
 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: [nomination] Apache openoffice chair

2015-01-26 Thread Rob Weir
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:37 AM, RA Stehmann
anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de wrote:
 On 26.01.2015 15:20, Rob Weir wrote:
 On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:17 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi

 Several private emails, during the previous vote (meaning too late to
 change anything), have persuaded me to reconsider. Self nomination is
 generally not a good thing, but Andrea has asked me specifically to send
 this mail, to stop any confusion (or rumors) about my role.

 I am available, if the community wants me as chair (and PMC) without time
 limit.


 But is there a limit on how many times one can vocally resign from a
 community before one loses credibility?


 Not one or two times, not seven times and not seven multiplied by
 seventyseven times.


Specifically, I'm asking about when someone repeatedly shows an
attitude of If you don't do it my way I will resign.   I'm concerned
that this temprement is not very conducive to being a PMC Chair.  The
attitude, more than the numbers, is what matters.  The repetition, of
course, confirms the attitude.

Regards,

-Rob

 Kind regards
 Michael


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



Re: [nomination] Apache openoffice chair

2015-01-26 Thread Rob Weir
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
 jan i wrote:

 I am available, if the community wants me as chair (and PMC) without time
 limit.


 (Answering both messages in one)

 OK, so we have two candidates, which is great!


I must have missed it, but when did you call for nominations?   And
how long are we giving to nominations?  And can we have an explanation
why the results of the last vote were just ignored?

-Rob


 Thank you Dennis.
 Thank you Jan.

 I appreciate the availability of both of you and your sense of
 responsibility. Your candidacy will hopefully be met by the PMC with a large
 participation in the vote and with a positive, constructive, attitude.

 I'll start a vote soon, while it lasts... and again, thank you both for
 helping move this project forward. OpenOffice needs people like you.

 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: [nomination] Apache openoffice chair

2015-01-26 Thread Rob Weir
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:17 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
 Hi

 Several private emails, during the previous vote (meaning too late to
 change anything), have persuaded me to reconsider. Self nomination is
 generally not a good thing, but Andrea has asked me specifically to send
 this mail, to stop any confusion (or rumors) about my role.

 I am available, if the community wants me as chair (and PMC) without time
 limit.


But is there a limit on how many times one can vocally resign from a
community before one loses credibility?

-Rob

 I promise to do the chair duties as defined by ASF, everything else depends
 on the PMC.

 I think Dennis will make a good chair/PMC, he is a lot better connected to
 AOO than me while I am relatively well connected within apache (have a look
 at people.apache.org)

 Just avoid any misunderstandings, LABS (which is a very very silent
 project) elected me as chair earlier this month and I am also spending
 hours developing Corinthia.

 I prefer not to enter into a debate about the qualifications of Dennis and
 me, the community knows us both (I have not changed since I resigned).

 I hope our community get a working PMC with a lot more activity.

 rgds
 jan i







 --
 Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

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



Re: [NOMINATION] Dennis Hamilton for Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

2015-01-26 Thread Rob Weir
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote:
 It's my birthday and it just seemed a good idea to move the needle on 
 Priority #1.  I'm rather uncomfortable about self-nomination yet I figure the 
 conversations and discussion are of value.

 I hereby nominate myself as the replacement for Andrea Pescetti as Apache 
 OpenOffice PMC Chair.


+1

-Rob

 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CHAIR
   My promise, if selected, is to faithfully deliver on the responsibilities 
 of a PMC Chair as required of an Officer of the Foundation.

 APPROACH TO APACHE OPEN OFFICE

   With regard to the PMC, which I am not a member of, my promise is to serve 
 as an effective member of that community and with particular attention to PMC 
 responsibilities to the Foundation but also to the cultivation of a 
 sustainable, thriving project.
   As an AOO committer, my personal itch is around intake of new developers 
 and reducing the friction and learning curve that goes with that.  I am also 
 personally committed to furthering the interoperability among ODF-supporting 
 products of all kinds in whatever ways that works for Apache OpenOffice.  I 
 have been training to become more involved in the code, as slow as I am at 
 that.  I am also interested in how user support can be broadened and 
 materials brought current and highly-available.

 WHERE'S DENNIS BEEN?

 Folks who've been here since OpenOffice came to the ASF will recall that I 
 was a member of the PPMC and did not continue after graduation to a Top Level 
 Project.  On the PPMC I was an initial committer and I contributed to 
 administrative activities for some mailing lists, intake of new committers 
 and PPMC members.  I was particularly pleased to participate in the 
 preservation of the OpenOffice Forums.

 I have no difficulty with administrative, procedural, and policy matters.  My 
 departure was more from recognition that I was not equipped to work on the 
 code and that I did not just want to continue as an administrative resource.  
 I also left the OASIS ODF TC around the same time.

 Meanwhile, I engaged in some training, including in security and 
 cryptography, an interest of mine with respect to document privacy.  Last 
 year I became interested in change-tracking and I'm currently putting the 
 final touches on two workshop papers I presented last September.  I also did 
 some course-work in software development and I am continuing that.

 It was renewed interest in tracked changes and other aspects of ODF 
 interoperability that brought me back to following AOO lists.  My 
 participation has increased to the current level over the past few months.  I 
 also joined the Apache Corinthia Incubator as an initial committer and PPMC 
 member of that newborn podling.

 NO REALLY, WHERE HAS DENNIS BEEN?

 I wrote my first line of code when I was 19.  That was in May, 1958.  I went 
 through the usual progression of development from programmer to becoming a 
 lead developer on what we called systems software, including assemblers, 
 compilers and utilities for the machines of the time.  I also did some 
 programming-language design work.  I had the good fortune to work at Sperry 
 Univac, in Seattle, New York City, and Blue Bell Pennsylvania during the peak 
 of Grace Hopper's presence there.  Although she knew me, I did not do much 
 directly with her (although I graded papers for her once when she was 
 teaching a course in the Wharton School). Later I became a consultant, and 
 after two tours at Xerox Corporation, serving as a software architect and 
 technical-staff member, first in Rochester, New York, and finally in Palo 
 Alto, I retired at the end of 1998.  I recommend retirement as a career.

 I began working in industry standards when ASCII was a new-born and ALGOL 60 
 was expected to revolutionize programming.  Document formats became of 
 interest while I was at Xerox and I participated in development of consortium 
 agreements for document management.  Most of my internal work in my later 
 Xerox years was around interoperability provisions of various kinds.  I dug 
 into OOXML and ODF only after my retirement when those standardization 
 efforts were moving along.  There are words of mine in both of those 
 specifications.

 SO WHAT?

 Most of us are only acquainted on the Internet and, while I have met others 
 on AOO, those occasions are rare and fleeting.

 More than that, I want to offer, in my nomination, an opportunity to say what 
 doesn't work with regard to me personally.  I welcome that.  And please 
 express more of what is wanted from the Project that is not happening and how 
 any contributors are expected, not just the PMC and its Chair, to make a 
 difference with respect to the expectations this community has.

 I respect all feedback and discussion and I will still be here whatever the 
 outcome of this Priority #1 activity happens to be.  I am not attached to 
 being PMC Chair.  I am offering to take on 

Re: [nomination] Apache openoffice chair

2015-01-26 Thread Rob Weir
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
 Rob Weir wrote:

 I must have missed it, but when did you call for nominations?   And
 how long are we giving to nominations?


 All of this started on January 1st and we can't go on and discuss forever.
 Everybody has had the opportunity to nominate and be nominated. We need
 something that converges. People who are stopping the process must realize
 they are damaging the project by reiterating the same discussions. If we
 vote, I would add an option None of the above and ask that people who
 prefer that one are constructive and suggest some concretely verified
 different options.

 And can we have an explanation
 why the results of the last vote were just ignored?


 Vote was canceled, in agreement with the only candidate, since the number of
 binding -1 votes (especially compared to the number of voters) was making it
 clear that I couldn't conclude we had consensus. This is basically what I
 wrote at the time http://markmail.org/message/jlwujrial43unk4j ; maybe I
 don't understand your question, but I'm confident I didn't do anything
 wrong.

 We don't even need a formal vote. There are projects that are able to change
 their Chair with a 3-day discussion on the private list. Here we chose to do
 everything in public, with the obvious noise that comes with it. And this
 requires constructive attitude.



So my concern was your statement I'll start a vote soon, while it
lasts, when there has not been a call for nominations, nor a 3-day
period of time.  It sounds like someone has solicited up nominations
via private emails.  Let's do this in public.  Yes, we had discussion
before, but some of the candidates who previously dropped out seem to
now be back in, due to these private conversations.  Maybe others
would emerge if we did this openly.  So let's be fair and have an
actual open call for nominations if we're going to have a 2nd round
of this, and not just rush to a vote based on backroom discussions.

Thanks!

-Rob


 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: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

2015-01-16 Thread Rob Weir
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
 On 31 December 2014 I wrote to this list that I would be available to resign
 from the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair position as soon as a successor could
 be elected. We had nominations and long discussions and in the end we have
 one candidate available to be the next OpenOffice PMC Chair: Louis
 Suárez-Potts. It's now time to vote.

 Do you approve that, in his capacity as the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair,
 Andrea Pescetti submits a resolution to the Board asking to be replaced by
 Louis Suárez-Potts as the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair?
 [ ] +1 Yes
 [ ]  0 Abstain
 [ ] -1 No


+1 (binding)

 Vote opens now and it will last one week (and a few hours), until 22 January
 2015 10:00 AM GMT, to give all community members the opportunity to
 participate. If vote passes, the resolution will be submitted to the Board
 in time for the February meeting (18 February 2015).

 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: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

2015-01-15 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
 O.Felka wrote:

 Am 15.01.2015 um 09:04 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

 Procedural note: I didn't add it to my initial mail in order to keep it
 short, but it is highly recommended that -1 votes be accompanied by a
 brief motivation (1-2 lines), especially if you haven't participated in
 the discussions so far. Knowing what is wrong can help a lot. This holds
 for the -1 votes that have already been expressed too.


 If this should be a vote no one has to argue for his decision.


 Ultimately the +1, 0 or -1 is what counts, indeed.

 But in the case of a -1, an explanation is always helpful to understand
 what's wrong (wrong timing, and why? wrong person, and why? do you see an
 option we didn't consider, and which one?). So it is very common practice,
 unless it's clear from the previous discussion, to provide it. And I would
 personally find it very useful.


Exactly.   That's why we have a discussion prior to a vote, to raise
issues and try to resolve them.   In most cases it is unusual to see a
-1 from someone who never mentioned any concern in the discussions.
Or are PMC Chair votes different?

-Rob


 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: Infographic Re: Your stand proposal for Apache OpenOffice has been accepted

2015-01-13 Thread Rob Weir
Some more fun facts here, from a presentation Andrew Rist and I did at
ApacheCon last year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAv6Iyryz3c

Regards,

-Rob

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Nancy K
nancythirt...@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:


 I would like to try to build an infographic of 15-20 or so Open Office facts 
 in Illustrator (there are some other programs that are free with prebuilt 
 icons if anyone else wants to try this -  piktochart.com, easel.ly.com and 
 infogr.am.com). Is there a place (or do you have any) with fun or interesting 
 facts already known that I could use?
 Thanks
 Nancy
   Nancy   Web Design
 Free 24 hour pass to lynda.com.
 Video courses on SEO, CMS,
 Design and Software Courses
   From: Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com
  To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
  Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 4:14 PM
  Subject: Re: Your stand proposal for Apache OpenOffice has been accepted



 On 01/12/2015 01:55 PM, Michal Hriň wrote:
 V Pondelok, 12. január 2015 o 22:18 +0100, Marcus napísal(a):
 Am 01/12/2015 09:06 PM, schrieb Michal Hri:
 I had an idea .. What do you think ? :)
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/101590593@N06/16240171406/

 https://www.flickr.com/photos/101590593@N06/16265260892/

 thanks for making the pictures. The English one looks better for me.

 May I ask for 2 improvements? The sentence with Liberating ... should
 be a bit lower to get more space betweeen the gulls and text. Currently
 it's a bit overlapping. And I would use the word Freeing instead of
 Liberating - except an English native-speaker. ;-)


 Sorry, here

 https://www.flickr.com/photos/101590593@N06/16266021142/

 very nice!


 Marcus



  Dňa pondelok, 12. január 2015 10:50 ,jan ij...@apache.org  napísal:


  On Monday, January 12, 2015, Andrea Pescettipesce...@apache.org  wrote:

 On 30/12/2014 jan i wrote:

 On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, RA Stehmann wrote:

 On 29.12.2014 22:11, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

 The important things are:
 - decide WHAT to have (pins, roll-up?, other gadgets?); we can take 
 time
 in the next few days for this

 The roll-up is still existing, but if you want a special one for the 15
 years celebrations, it has to be purchased.
 English flyers are existing, but if you need special ones for the 15
 years celebrations, they have to be produced.
 We have also french and german flyers, but no dutch (and no italian or
 spanish ones).
 We have Apache feather stickers, OpenOffice.org lanyards and pins (retro
 design ;-) ). And we have a few Apache cup warm keepers.
 Sticker postcards have been running out.

 How about sweat shirts with our logo, the feather and some 15year marker 
 ?


 OK, so wrapping this up and since no-one volunteered for design...

 Stuff that we must have (and that we already have the design for) include:
 1) Pins: we already have the design at http://www.openoffice.org/
 marketing/art/galleries/logos/index.html ; can someone suggest a provider
 and take care of this?
 2) OpenOffice stickers: same? Or do we miss the design? I can't find
 anything, and probably the ones I saw still have the old logo.
 3) Apache stickers and possibly other materials: These probably are
 already arranged by Apache and will be delivered by Jan.

 Nice to have include (we need someone who designs this, and they will
 have to be dropped unless someone volunteers quickly):
 1) New roll-up with 15 years design: if a volunteers designs it, we can
 have it too.
 2) New English leaflets with 15 years design: same
 3) OpenOffice stickers if we need the design.
 4) Sweatshirts: I think it's a very nice idea, again the issue is with
 finding a provider.

 With only 2 weeks to go, I see it a bit unrealistic,  to make design, find
 a provider, agree on cost and get it delivered in time, but that is just my
 opinion.


 Budget is not an issue. It looks like the expense will be reasonable. We
 have funds that can cover these expenses.

we should have the items produced in europe there are plenty of cheap
 places.


 Were you thinking about some website/company in particular?

 not anybody that can deliver overnight to a good price, to get the good
 prices you typically  need to allow 8-10 days delivery.

 -
 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


 --
 -
 MzK

 There's a bit of magic in everything,
   and some loss to even things out.
 -- Lou Reed



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



Re: Nominations for a new PMC Chair

2015-01-13 Thread Rob Weir
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote:
 Sounds a bit like the Marcons for marketing in the original OO.o project.


Right.   But I hope it is clear to everyone that the main difference
between OOo and AOO is not the lack of titles.   The main difference
is the lack of a large number full-time, professional developers and
QA from Sun.   Adding or subtracting titles, or swapping them around,
does not change that.   Adopting the Apache License or the MPL does
not change that.  Having a PMC or an Advisory Board does not change
that.This is not to say that the PMC Chair is not an important
role.  It is.  But it does not change the basic facts on the ground.

So let's get this election over with and get on to dealing with the
critical tasks ahead.

Regards,

-Rob



 On 13 January 2015 at 09:45, RA Stehmann anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de
 wrote:

 On 12.01.2015 23:22, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:

  Of course, the community could create such roles—Marketing Leads, say.
 Done that before, and it works fine. But I’m also keen—and I think others
 are, too—in keeping to a minimum bureaucratic structures. (Not because I
 dislike bureaucracy—I don’t, in theory, as a means of resolving
 differences—but because titles and roles tend to calcify, and that I don’t
 think anyone likes.)

 In the historic germanophone community we have roles called
 Ansprechpartner. That means a person, to whom topics can be addressed.
 We have Ansprechpartner (contact persons) for marketing, QA; Mac-port,
 website, translation etc..

 So it was clear, that these persons had adopted a special responsbility,
 but there was no special power given to them.

 I think, it might be a first step, if some of the PMC members would
 tell, for what topic they can be a contact person. Maybe we can add this
 in the list of the PMC members on the website, improving transparency,
 like we do it for mailinglists, blog, svn, bugzilla, wiki and social media.

 Kind regards
 Michael





 --
 Ian

 Ofqual Accredited Qualifications
 https://theingots.org/community/index.php?q=qualifications

 Headline points in the 2014, 2015, 2016 school league tables

 Baseline testing and progress measures
 https://theingots.org/community/Baseline_testing_info

 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield
 Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No:
 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. +44 (0)1827 305940

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



Fwd: Nominations for a new PMC Chair

2015-01-08 Thread Rob Weir
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
 On 01/01/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote:

 Let's take several days, until 10 January, to receive nominations (or
 self-nominations) for the next PMC Chair. Just reply to this e-mail with
 nominations.


 We have 6 nominees so far, very good since all of them would be excellent
 choices. I'm now asking each of them to either accept or refuse the
 nomination by the 10 January deadline. Nominations are still open, but if
 you nominate someone I'll immediately refer to this mail and ask for a
 statement by 10 January too.

 Each of the (current and future) nominees should answer this mail in public
 and state very briefly:

 1) Whether he/she is available to run for election; the term is not set, but
 I expect an availability to stay in the role for at least one year.


I'll decline my nomination, though I did give it serious consideration
and am gratified to be nominated.

a) I don't think I can reliably meet the time commitment that this
role would require.

b) I think that progress within the larger ecosystem will require
rapprochement with the less ideological elements of the LibreOffice
community.  My past statements and writings make me too much of an
obstacle in that respect, allowing those with more radical views to
block the natural accommodation that should be occurring between these
two communities.

c) I think I can better serve the project, as I have, in other ways.

 2) Where his/her efforts will primarily be directed.

 3) Regardless of whether one is running or not (and regardless of whether
 one is elected or not), it might be that some of the candidates wish to take
 responsibility for a certain area. This can be very good, since the project
 is huge and the Chair might miss some details. For example, Hagar often
 updates the draft quarterly report with information about the Forum
 (figures, issues...). If the Chair knows that someone commits to follow a
 certain area closely and to help in reporting, then reporting becomes a team
 work and can be much better than what we have done so far.


I've generally been focused on:

a) Social media -- I manage the Facebook, Twitter and Google+ accounts.

b) Analytics and SEO for our website

c) Track downloads and similar stats

d) Blogging

e) Materials to help new volunteers get started on the project

f) Bugzilla Admin

g) Moderator for many of the mailing lists.

In general, what I do helps amplify the visibility and recognition of
the good work that our committers do in new AOO releases.   I'm hoping
we soon get a Release Manager volunteer, and make progress on a new
release so I can be busy again in the above areas.

Regards,

-Rob

 The 6 nominees so far are, in alphabetical order:
 - janiJan Iversen
 - jsc Jürgen Schmidt
 - kschenk Kay Schenk
 - louis   Louis Suarez-Potts
 - marcus  Marcus Lange
 - robweir Rob Weir

 I'm hereby asking each of them (and any future nominees) to provide their
 statement by 10 January; those who already sent their statement are free to
 expand upon it according to the above guidelines if they wish.


 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



AOO 4.1 on OS/2

2015-01-08 Thread Rob Weir
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/OpenOffice-fuer-OS-2-erhaeltlich-2513423.html

My German is not so good, but this looks like an OS/2 port has been
updated to AOO 4.1.

-Rob

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



Re: AOO 4.1 on OS/2

2015-01-08 Thread Rob Weir
And in English here:

http://www.bitwiseworks.com/press/20150107.php

Looks like it is actually AOO 4.1.1.

-Rob

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
 http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/OpenOffice-fuer-OS-2-erhaeltlich-2513423.html

 My German is not so good, but this looks like an OS/2 port has been
 updated to AOO 4.1.

 -Rob

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



Re: [mail list moderation] Help needed with message to announce

2015-01-02 Thread Rob Weir
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
 I included annou...@openoffice.apache.org on the message I sent yesterday
 about ApacheConNA, but it hasn't been delivered to that list. Does it need
 help from a list moderator?



Sorry for the delay.  I've been distracted by various family events
over the holidays.  Should be 'back to normal' next week.

So we're all on the same page, the way annou...@openoffice.org works is:

1) It automatically rejects all posts unless sent from apache.org
email address.So this means only committers can submit notes.

2) All posts are held for moderation.   I'm one moderator.  I'm not
sure who else is.

Regards,

-Rob

 --
 -
 MzK

 There's a bit of magic in everything,
   and some loss to even things out.
 -- Lou Reed

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



Re: Deflecting the Attack of the Clones

2014-12-15 Thread Rob Weir
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
 I have been watching the arrival of support requests for AOO knock-offs on 
 Android and plain-old PCs with some dismay.  Some of this damage is 
 self-inflicted: The Apache OpenOffice source code compiles to binaries that 
 describes themselves and support structures as offered by Apache OpenOffice.  
 That and the permissive license allows cloners to do whatever they want 
 without consequences or support burdens, while extracting support fees (and 
 add-cancellation upgrades), and whatever benefits there are for installing 
 malware/adware alongside.

 I ponder this dilemma from time to time and this is how I propose to produce 
 open-source code under permissive licenses.  Not that anything I produce will 
 appeal to parasites as valuable to clone.  It is the practice that intrigues 
 me along with my interest in having ways to establish trustworthy 
 producer-adopter relationships.

 Here's my thinking about how I would manage in the face of parasitic cloning 
 where it is up to me.  It would be more difficult for an Apache Top-Level 
 Project, though not impossible.  It does mean that convenience binaries are 
 not identical to what can be produced using the source distribution alone, 
 and the difference is apparent.

 This does not prevent counterfeiting of a supported binary distribution.  It 
 does allow counterfeits to be detected.  It doesn't prevent distribution of 
 unaltered binaries within a parasitic installer.  It doesn't prevent 
 redistributions for a fee.  With regard to end-users, unaltered binaries are 
 of-course supported.  Other derivatives are not.  Adopters of other 
 derivatives will be treated gently in their searches for support.

  - Dennis

 PRESERVING DISTRIBUTION PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY

  1. The code will compile as a working/reference/developer binary. It will 
 not provide signed binaries or anything that, shared as binaries, will 
 provide identification as some sort of authenticated and supported end-user 
 distribution.  It will not come with any support notification or automatic 
 updates, and it is meant for developers and testing, not end-user support of 
 any kind.

  2. The source tree will contain placeholder resources that are extracted and 
 then used in a default build.  To obtain other than a default build, the 
 extractions of the placeholders can be replaced and the signing and 
 time-stamping build-steps included in a construction.  The versions of those 
 resources for official distributions are not open-sourced and are 
 introduced privately in a working copy, just as private keys are applied 
 privately.  This would be true for me, and for anyone else who wants to make 
 some sort of official distribution of their own, whether the public source 
 code is modified or not.

  3. With regard to the source code is the release mantra, this is not a 
 problem.  Anyone can compile, use, and adapt the source code and produce 
 their own binaries as much as they like.  They just won't appear to be mine, 
 unless someone intentionally does that.  And it still won't be signed by me 
 (unless there is a signing-key compromise, triggering a disaster-recovery 
 plan).

  4. Customizations of resources that are not shared include logos, icons, 
 notices, update-check protocol data, etc.  There will be identification of 
 the source-code release that is used and appropriate inclusion of support 
 details.  There may have to be supplements to localization, 
 internationalization and accessibility provisions, and that will take some 
 work.  There will be enough information in the source code and the 
 documentation of the default resources so anyone can know what steps to take 
 in providing their own customization.



My impression is that Firefox does something similar.  I think I read
someplace that their source code distribution lacks the Firefox
branding.   It is more of a white label product, functionally the
same as Firefox, but without the branding.

But still, I don't think that really solves the problems that we face.
  Correct be if I'm wrong, but we're not really seeing someone doing
their own compile of AOO from source code and using that to spread
malware, right?   We're seeing people take our binaries directly and
bundle that with installers that spread the malware, or put up
websites that charge and then point to AOO's binaries directly.

In the end, the real harm here is done to the users.  So I wonder
whether the best we can do is make it easy for them to raise
complaints with those who can take action, e.g, payment processors
associated with credit cards or telephone networks, or even consumer
authorities.

-Rob





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



Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

2014-12-09 Thread Rob Weir
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
 I don't know if this is helpful or not.  I'm not in a position to check.

 Thinking out loud:

 There are two cases of signatures.

  1. Digital signing of installable components, such as DLLs and such.  This 
 is also important but a second-order problem.

  2. Digital signing of the installer binary (the .EXE).  That or shipping a 
 signed .MSI.
 This is more important.  It has to do with raising the confidence in 
 downloads and installs and is of immediate benefit.

 It *may* be the case that the installer binary .EXE already has room in the 
 file for a signature and it is simply not being used.  The properties on the 
 binary .EXE are also not filled in for AOO 4.1.1 en-US.  Those are the ones 
 that show a File description, File version, Product name, Product version, 
 Copyright, Language, etc.

 It might be worthwhile to see if the properties and signature can be injected 
 in the .EXE already.  And if not, it may be possible to rebuild the .EXE, 
 since the bits are still around.  They are what are extracted into a folder 
 which is then used for running setup.

 If feasible, this strikes me as a perfectly worthwhile exercise for 
 slip-streaming a signed binary of AOO 4.1.1 for Windows.  As Andrea remarks, 
 It would also be a right-sized teething exercise for our learning how to work 
 through the signing process.


I'm rather pessimistic.

Here's what I see as the main user annoyances related the integrity of
AOO downloads:

1) Scams that ask for payment and then redirect to genuine versions of
AOO.   So the user has lost before they even download a single byte of
our package.   Signing will not help them,

2) Scams that wrap AOO's installer with an installer or similar app
that takes the user through a complicated set of screens to accept
various offers that result in adware/malware/badware being
installed.  Only then does it chain to the genuine AOO install.
Again, signing doesn't help the user.

3) Download pages that offer genuine AOO downloads, but the page is
filled with other advertisements that lure the user into clicking
them, some which even claim they are the AOO download.  Signing
doesn't help the user much here.

Note that in all of these cases, the bad code, the installer/wrapper
code could have a digital signature as well.  So user education --
don't run unsigned code -- doesn't really solve the problem here as
well.

4)   Annoyance of users who download genuine AOO from our website and
need to deal with extra mouse clicks to dismiss warning dialogs from
the browser, OS, antivirus, etc.   This is the main thing signing
fixes.

This is worth doing, I think, for benefit #4.   But by itself it
doesn't really drain the swamp.  Note in particular that I have not
seen someone actually modify the AOO code or installer to make
malware.   Signing would help with that, if it happened.  But today
there are far easier scams.

Regards,

-Rob






 I'm all for starting with the least that could possibly work, even though I 
 have no expertise on this.

  - Dennis

 -Original Message-
 From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]
 Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 15:08
 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
 Subject: Re: Budapest and thereafter.

 Marcus wrote:
 Am 12/08/2014 02:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
 We could actually do both, if you believe it makes sense:
 - signed 4.1.1 (next Windows binaries only) by end of December
 - 4.1.2 in January
 IMHO this doesn't make sense and would be just a waste of resources,
 when doing 2 releases in such a short time frame.
 But I would tend to do only the bigger release (4.1.2) - let's say in
 January/February. When ...

 Honestly, Infra would like (and they are right) that after asking for
 years for digital signing, we actually use it. We can't put many
 obstacles in front of it. So a long list of things that we must have
 ready before that won't work. Signing Windows binaries will have to
 happen, and users will benefit from it in terms of trust in OpenOffice.

 Assuming that more or less we can master the technology, distributing
 the 4.1.1 signed binaries is not a huge feat for us (it would need
 production of the new binaries and their upload to a new directory like
 windows-signed and defaulting to windows-signed in the JavaScript in
 the download page). It is far less than a release and at least it could
 show that on this (new for OpenOffice) topic we are ready.

 In case I wasn't clear (and this is my fault for not summarizing the
 Budapest talks correctly) signed binaries have high priority. One way is
 to make a 4.1.2 release and sign it, and this requires going through the
 whole process (no, it can't be a Windows-only release). Another way is
 to ship a signed version of the existing 4.1.1 binaries as a warm up
 for the moment when this will be integral part of the release process.

 Regards,
Andrea.

 

Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

2014-12-09 Thread Rob Weir
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:21 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
 On Tuesday, December 9, 2014, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:

 On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 dennis.hamil...@acm.org javascript:; wrote:
  I don't know if this is helpful or not.  I'm not in a position to check.
 
  Thinking out loud:
 
  There are two cases of signatures.
 
   1. Digital signing of installable components, such as DLLs and such.
 This is also important but a second-order problem.
 
   2. Digital signing of the installer binary (the .EXE).  That or
 shipping a signed .MSI.
  This is more important.  It has to do with raising the confidence in
 downloads and installs and is of immediate benefit.
 
  It *may* be the case that the installer binary .EXE already has room in
 the file for a signature and it is simply not being used.  The properties
 on the binary .EXE are also not filled in for AOO 4.1.1 en-US.  Those are
 the ones that show a File description, File version, Product name, Product
 version, Copyright, Language, etc.
 
  It might be worthwhile to see if the properties and signature can be
 injected in the .EXE already.  And if not, it may be possible to rebuild
 the .EXE, since the bits are still around.  They are what are extracted
 into a folder which is then used for running setup.
 
  If feasible, this strikes me as a perfectly worthwhile exercise for
 slip-streaming a signed binary of AOO 4.1.1 for Windows.  As Andrea
 remarks, It would also be a right-sized teething exercise for our learning
 how to work through the signing process.
 

 I'm rather pessimistic.

 Here's what I see as the main user annoyances related the integrity of
 AOO downloads:

 1) Scams that ask for payment and then redirect to genuine versions of
 AOO.   So the user has lost before they even download a single byte of
 our package.   Signing will not help them,

 2) Scams that wrap AOO's installer with an installer or similar app
 that takes the user through a complicated set of screens to accept
 various offers that result in adware/malware/badware being
 installed.  Only then does it chain to the genuine AOO install.
 Again, signing doesn't help the user.


 as long as we don't have a signed installer  nobody can tell the
 difference, but with a signed installer we would have a harder argument
 (agreed if people listen) ?


Not really.  In the above cases the damage is done*before* the user
ever launches our installer.  So in these cases whether it is signed
or not doesn't matter.



 3) Download pages that offer genuine AOO downloads, but the page is
 filled with other advertisements that lure the user into clicking
 them, some which even claim they are the AOO download.  Signing
 doesn't help the user much here.

 Note that in all of these cases, the bad code, the installer/wrapper
 code could have a digital signature as well.  So user education --
 don't run unsigned code -- doesn't really solve the problem here as
 well.

 4)   Annoyance of users who download genuine AOO from our website and
 need to deal with extra mouse clicks to dismiss warning dialogs from
 the browser, OS, antivirus, etc.   This is the main thing signing
 fixes.

 This is worth doing, I think, for benefit #4.   But by itself it
 doesn't really drain the swamp.  Note in particular that I have not
 seen someone actually modify the AOO code or installer to make
 malware.   Signing would help with that, if it happened.  But today
 there are far easier scams.


 I agree with what you write, but I think you bypass a important point.
 Everybody tells now more than ever that we are dead...which is by far
 not true, and making a real volunteer release would show that clearly. (I
 appreciate what the paid developer do, so please don't be offended).

 To me digital signing is a nice way to show our community and users that
 AOO is still a major factor in this part of the world.


I'm not arguing against a release or against signing.   I'm just
pointing out that the scammers are two steps ahead of us, and even
with signing most of the problems still remain.

Regards,

-Rob





 Regards,

 -Rob






  I'm all for starting with the least that could possibly work, even
 though I have no expertise on this.
 
   - Dennis
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org javascript:;]
  Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 15:08
  To: dev@openoffice.apache.org javascript:;
  Subject: Re: Budapest and thereafter.
 
  Marcus wrote:
  Am 12/08/2014 02:32 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
  We could actually do both, if you believe it makes sense:
  - signed 4.1.1 (next Windows binaries only) by end of December
  - 4.1.2 in January
  IMHO this doesn't make sense and would be just a waste of resources,
  when doing 2 releases in such a short time frame.
  But I would tend to do only the bigger release (4.1.2) - let's say in
  January/February. When ...
 
  Honestly, Infra would like (and they are right) that after asking for
  years

Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

2014-12-09 Thread Rob Weir
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
 +1 (non-binding [;) on PMC approval of any slip-stream.

 I don't understand why full rebuilds are required.  The only crucial file 
 that needs signing is the .exe that is downloaded and extracts the actual 
 setup files.  All it does is extract a number of fixed files and then run the 
 extracted setup.exe.


We found this out when we took AOO through the Windows 8 certification
testing tool.They have something new called kernel-mode code
signing where they check each exe, dll, sys , etc., for a digital
signature at load time.  So certification requires we sign any
executable code and then do it for the outermost installer as well.

Of course, nothing requires that we go for certification.   I bet if
we just signed the outermost installer it would be satisfy earlier
versions of Windows, antivirus apps and browsers that are doing this
kind of check.So it might be worth doing just this minimum
initially.

Regards,

-Rob


 If a signed version of that .exe can be created, using the existing setups 
 delivered with the current 4.1.1 .exe files, there is nothing else to do.  It 
 has to be done once for each language, but that's it.  No full rebuilds, no 
 new dates on files.  The extracted setups would be binary identical to each 
 of the current ones for 4.1.1, so it is easy to verify that the signed .exe 
 does not deliver anything but the already reviewed installs.

 That might be unworkable, but it is definitely worth seeing if it is possible 
 rather than going through a full-up set of build processes.

  - Dennis

 PS: Rob's analysis is very useful to keep in mind as we look at other ways to 
 increase confidence in the AOO binaries and the AOO site as preferable for 
 those downloads.  I think grabbing the low-hanging fruit and getting 
 something simple through the process is also desirable, especially since we 
 are starting from zero using the signing process.


 -Original Message-
 From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org]
 Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 08:29
 To: dev; Dennis Hamilton
 Subject: Re: Signing AOO 4.1.1 (was RE: Budapest and thereafter)

 On 9 December 2014 at 16:26, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org
 wrote:

 Andrea,

 [ ... ]
 (Or even sign the existing installer
 file, if it is in the proper format for inserting the information and
 signature.)  That is, the .cab, .msi, and setup.exe would be completely
 unchanged.

 No we need to rebuild (and for every language), because the last step in
 the build process needs to be repeated, we cannot just patch the files.

 If we could move away from 1 install set pr language, the job would be
 about 30 times faster :-)




 AOO is special compared to most other projects, in that the majority of our
 users use the binary package. As a consequence, I recommend a PMC vote,
 even if its not strictly needed.

 [ ... ]


 It would still have to be project-managed in the sense that all of the
 measures to preserve binary authenticity and provide accompanying binary
 release management internal to AOO should be followed.

 [ ... ]


 -
 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] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages

2014-12-02 Thread Rob Weir
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
 There's an app for Apple devices called Quick Office Pro. It is totally
 unrelated to OpenOffice project and code. A link to it is
 https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512?mt=8

 They link to http://openoffice.org for user support. This results in many
 off-topic requests to the users list and in damage for the OpenOffice
 reputation; also, the app is not free, so they ask for refund and confuse
 our users. (We are trying, by the way, to get that app removed from the
 store, but it's a parallel course of action).

 Moderators on the users list have been considering to reject messages
 related to Quick Office Pro and to accompany rejection with a message
 explaining that OpenOffice has nothing (at a project level or code level) to
 do with Quick Office Pro, that the Quick Office Pro developers are abusing
 our support channels and that users should report the app to the Store where
 they bought it.


Is there a way we could handle it even earlier, at the Apache server
level?   Detect the incoming link based on the referrer as ones coming
from the offending website and then redirect that to a custom webpage
where we explain to the user that we are not QuickOffice Pro?   If we
do that then we would get no (or far fewer) emails, right?

-Rob


 Since there are concerns that the power to decide what to reject can be too
 subjective, I'm asking that we (subject to lazy consensus) agree that Quick
 Office Pro posts can be rejected with the explanation note described above.
 This will get irrelevant messages out of the list and avoid dangerous
 misunderstandings: I've personally replied to several such posts and I've
 seen other users get confused and believe that the reports applied to
 OpenOffice instead of Quick Office Pro, thus leading to even more confusion.
 A well-written rejection notice can be much more effective.

 If you have very, very valid concerns against this please speak up;
 otherwise I recommend that you realize that we virtually anything else is
 more important than Quick Office Pro, so if you, unlike me, have a lot of
 free time, you can spend it in more productive ways!

 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: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages

2014-12-02 Thread Rob Weir
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
 On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:


 Is there a way we could handle it even earlier, at the Apache server
 level?   Detect the incoming link based on the referrer as ones coming
 from the offending website and then redirect that to a custom webpage
 where we explain to the user that we are not QuickOffice Pro?   If we
 do that then we would get no (or far fewer) emails, right?


 I doubt there will be a common referrer as the links on

 https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512?mt=8

 just point to openoffice.org and the users getting through seem to be smart
 enough to find a contact address.  But if there was a way to do that it
 would be even better, yes.


I understand.  It should be possible to detect and redirect all
incoming website requests that originate from
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512

This could be done preferably at the Apache HTTP Server level, or
(less reliably) on our home page with a Javascript redirect:

script
if ( window.document.referrer.indexOf(
/itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512 ) != -1 ) {
   location.href = http://www.openoffice.org/new-special-page.html;;
}

/script


Regards,

-Rob

 S.

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



Proposal: Year end website updates

2014-12-01 Thread Rob Weir
We did this last year as well, I recall.   I'm assuming lazy consensus
to do the same for duration of holiday season, when many people look
to end-of-year gift giving and charitable donations.

Two changes:

1) Change alert to Help us Help the World: Donate Today (same text
as last year) and point it to our donation's page:
http://www.openoffice.org/donations.html

(or if someone has an idea for better text, let me know)

2) Change the current logo (upper left corner) to:

http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/christmas-logo.png

Regards,

-Rob

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



Re: 2015 -- Our 30th Anniversary

2014-11-24 Thread Rob Weir
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Roberto Galoppini
roberto.galopp...@gmail.com wrote:
 2014-11-23 21:55 GMT+01:00 Louis Suárez-Potts lui...@gmail.com:


  On 2014-11 -23, at 12:58, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
 
  Those who know the history know that Apache OpenOffice is the
  continuation of the OpenOffice.org project, which itself came from a
  proprietary suite developed in Germany called StarOffice, which itself
  started as StarWriter, an application written in 1985 by Marco Börries
  .
 
  So next year, in 2015, will be our 30th anniversary.
 
  Any ideas what we might do?
 
  For example, does anyone still have a Zilog Z80 (or an emulator) that
  can run the original StarWriter?
 
  It looks like some emulators here:
 
  http://www.z80.info/z80emu.htm#EMU_CPU_W32
 
  It might be interesting to show the history of Writer, from release to
  release, via a set of screen shots (or a movie) showing the evolution
  of the UI.
 
  Regards,
 
  -Rob
 
 
  Can we reach a consensus on whether 2015 should be a 25 yr or 30 yr
  anniversary? It would be great to get some graphic types involved soon in
  creating an appropriate logo for the websites to put up in 2015.

 Why do we need a certain date to enable good graphics? Note, I’m a
 historian. That means that I distrust any claim to date certainty and
 believe, rather, that we can trace backwards the emergence of modalities of
 living which in the present lay claim to having been birthed at particular
 moments, though in historical narrative that was only when they were
 revealed to be as such.

 Hence, a graph(ic) would do nicely, no? Not a cake but a chart?


 Would be cool to do something like this: http://historyofbitcoin.org/


I noticed this time line widget, from the same group that makes the
timeplot widget we use on our download stats page:

http://www.simile-widgets.org/timeline/

-Rob


 Roberto








 
  Despite the fact that 1985 was the release of a text based StarWriter
  rather than graphical, I, personally am good with this date.
 
 
  --
 
 -
  MzK
 
  One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth
  to a dancing star.
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche


 -
 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: Link broken on Help Wanted confluence page

2014-11-20 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Antoine Chevrier
1antoinechevri...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi all.
 On the page Help Wanted
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Help+Wanted of
 ApacheOpenOffice confluence space, the link inside the top introduction
 section - link called 14 Ways to contribute .../... - goes to a 404 page.
 I can't help for fix it. But maybe somebody of this list could.

Thanks, I fixed that, replacing with a link to another copy of that
same article.

This sounds like an area that we could/should automate, identifying
broken links.  Does anyone know of a good tool for this?

I also noticed quite a few outdated references to incubator-era
resources, e.g., ooo-dev mailing list, incubator versions of the
website, etc.   We fixed these old references in the static part of
out website by simply grepping the source files.  Is there any similar
way to find these in CWiki/MWiki?

-Rob



 Antoine

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



Re: OpenOffice folks: ApacheCon template?

2014-11-14 Thread Rob Weir
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
 On 11/10/14 6:27 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
 On 10/11/2014 Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
 On 24.10.2014 21:49, Rich Bowen wrote:
 Just received an e-mail pointing to the ApacheCon EU template at
 http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/apachecon-europe/program/speaker-guide
 which is a
 breathtaking 18 (eighteen) MB file!

 CCing the dev@community list again to say that Nick Burch provided a
 nicer (and smaller) template at
 http://people.apache.org/~nick/NickTemplateACEU14.odp

 (Nick, thank you and you can upload it to
 http://templates.openoffice.org/ too!)

 Regards,
   Andrea.

 Nice!  Is there a pointer to an easy and complete description of how to
 swap out the 18MB masters/background for Nick's improved version?  I'm
 still lost when it comes to bulk formatting changes in Impress.


The command line way is simple/direct:

1) Unzip the ODP file to disk

2) Look for any large image files

3) Load the large image files into an editor and reduce
resolution/color depth, increase compression, whatever you need to do
to make it smaller.

4) Save image file back to same name/same directory.

5) Zip up the directory, renaming it to and *.odp extension if needed.

ODF files are just ZIP archives containing XML + binary resources like
images.  So they are very hackable from the command line, once you
unzip them.

Regards,

-Rob


 - Shane


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


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



Re: AOO mailing list subscription totals, and other tidbits

2014-11-13 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 12/11/14 20:19, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
 jan i wrote:
 On 12 November 2014 15:38, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
 It's sometimes very interesting and there are some more numbers

 Mailing list numbers are very good. The announce list, if I recall
 correctly, used to have ~8000 subscribers, so this would be a 40-50%
 increment. Also, mailing list numbers show that when we write here we
 write to a much larger audience than the regular posters.

 Website numbers are different. Good traffic, but all of it is quite
 focused (3 pages, 2 minutes, few recurring visitors in percentage).

 if the 3 pages are the same we can of course focus to use this entry
 points and make them as useful as possible.



And we do have the ability to put a banner message (with a hyperlink)
on all web pages at once.   So we can catch the website traffic if we
have a message we want to get out.

-Rob

 Juergen


 This
 can probably be explained by the fact that website visitors are mostly
 people who download or update OpenOffice and are not planning to get
 involved (on the other side, active volunteers will often use other
 resources). Still, it's a potential that we can exploit.

 More numbers are coming next week as promised... But in general they
 reinforce the idea that Apache OpenOffice is now a mature project with
 good internal dynamics (even though I still see many fields where we
 need help and mentoring) and that this is a good moment to change pace
 and perspective, and use our full potential. More in one week at ApacheCon.

 apacheCON is in less than a week away, tuesday will have a official AOO
 meeting for everybody (except timewasters according to some)

 Occasions for a meeting are rare. It's important that we use this time
 at best. And that we come out with some great ideas and with motivated
 people willing to implement them with respect and backing from the
 community (and the PMC if you wish, but I find it sterile to distinguish
 between the two: OpenOffice is not the playground of the PMC, it is a
 community project for everybody to enjoy).

 I personally look forward to that meeting.

 Me too! I'm looking forward to an exciting, productive discussion and,
 if we need time, to a long night...

 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: emails to issues list

2014-11-12 Thread Rob Weir
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 11/11/2014 08:49 AM, Mathias Röllig wrote:
 Hello!

 Why it is possible that someone can send emails directly to the
 issues mailing list?

 e. g.
 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-issues/201411.mbox/%3C91286B00937747BA82897BA23D28C798%40Mainframe%3E



 Regards, Mathias

 This is a good question. It does seem like all of the postings should
 only come from Bugzilla. We'll need to confer with INFRA on this.


This is intentional, yes?   The issues list *only* echoes traffic from
BZ.   If you want to discuss an issue, do so via the BZ interface.
If we start doing email posts on the issues mailing list these
comments will be disconnected from the BZ issue.

-Rob




 --
 -
 MzK

 One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth
  to a dancing star.
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche

 -
 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



AOO mailing list subscription totals, and other tidbits

2014-11-11 Thread Rob Weir
Here's the current total subscribers for the AOO mailing lists I moderate:

announce 11,318
users 584
dev 499
qa 277
l10n 233
marketing 173
api 149

(I'm not a moderator for the doc mailing list, so I can't retrieve that number).

We also have 3,522 Twitter followers, 13,000 Facebook likes and
7,368 Google+ followers.

And we receive 230,000 visitors to the website per day.

-Rob

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



Re: Press request

2014-11-05 Thread Rob Weir
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
 On 31/10/2014 Eileen Wegner wrote:

 I´m working as a journalist for the westgerman broadcasting radio
 station 1LIVE.
 We would like to do a coverage about a open source programmer (including
 lobby work, organisation, financing etc) from Germany, best case North
 Rhine Westphalia.
 I would appreciate it very much, when you could send me some contacts or
 forward my request to German programmer.


 Any volunteers for this interview? We should have several German developers
 on this list without the need to forward the request to other lists.


Already taken care of.  Since she was looking for someone with a view
on lobby work, organisation, financing, etc., as well, I sent this on
to press@ where an ASF Member in Germany to talk to her.

-Rob


 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: Can open Open office add?

2014-10-29 Thread Rob Weir
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
 Have you checked the definition of these functions, like SUM(), in the 
 OpenFormula specification before you get too carried away?  Those have to be 
 reconciled with the data type that a cell is identified as carrying.  So if 
 the cell is identified as carrying Text, rather than Number, the rules of 
 OpenFormula prevail.  Now, OpenFormula does not dictate how the type of a 
 cell is established and how entries via the UI are converted, so you have 
 some leeway there.  Just be careful, please.

 Also, it is preferable, when comparing what is correct or not in interchange 
 among implementations, to compare with the way the same ODS file (not XLS) is 
 processed when opened by Excel 2013, for example.  If there is still an 
 interoperability discrepancy, we can narrow that down.  (Conversions among 
 ODS and XSL[X] just create even more places for possible round-trip defects 
 having nothing to do with the rules for the SUM function itself.)

 Finally, is there a bug report on this, with an example of what is claimed to 
 be a defective computation?.  It would be good to ground this situation with 
 some actual spreadsheet files that we can all inspect and be clear about what 
 we are looking at.


Another factor, when dealing with text, rather than numbers, in a cell
is the locale.   The string 1,000 could be interpreted differently
in an English spreadsheet document versus a German one.


-Rob




  -- Dennis E. Hamilton
 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


 -Original Message-
 From: Darren Myers [mailto:myers_dar...@hotmail.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 06:30
 To: Max Merbald; dev@openoffice.apache.org
 Subject: RE: Can open Open office add?

 Hello

 I have been working in IT for 32 years, from Mainframe design through to 
 cloud integrations within VM ESX servers I build. So I know a little bit 
 about hardware and software. I found the issue, and a team of developers I 
 know have found a resolution.

 The backend code for the function doesn't equate for single routines of sum 
 in other formats based on the cell, that why it errors. However they have 
 proposed a code change that sums any value numeric where the format is not 
 equal to an integer.

 The code allows and can distingish the Value enetered, irraspective of 
 format, and provides the total. At the moment OpenOffice doesn't, its flawed.



 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:37:48 +0100
 From: max.merb...@gmx.de
 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; myers_dar...@hotmail.com
 Subject: Re: Fwd: Can open Open office add?

 Hello there,

 I used to have a Star Writer from 1988 (Version 3.0) and it was just
 only a text processing program and did not contain any spreadsheat as it
 was not a calculation program. I believe the full Star Office only came
 during the 1990s. I can't tell, however, where the spreadsheets from
 StarOffice originated.

 Second, of course AOO Calc can add. I've never encountered any problem
 with it regarding simple calculations like adding. What I have
 encountered multiple times, however, in 25 years of working with
 computers is that some people don't really know how to use some software
 correctly and blame the resulting errors on the software. Often enough
 they sincerely believe something is wrong with the software while the
 actual mistake was their own, using, if we go back to the calc
 programme, a flawed formula or something. Maybe that was the case here.

 Max


 Am 29.10.2014 um 04:57 schrieb jonathon:
 
  On 29/10/14 02:36, F C. Costero wrote:
  Forwarding in case Darren isn't subscribed. And I see now that my 
  reference
  below to 30 years should have been somewhat less, but still many years.
  Picky.
  I have no idea if the StarWriter from 1985 included that functionality,
  but it was not uncommon in spreadsheets of that era.
  By 1990, it would have been a mandatory feature.
 
  jonathon
 
 * English - detected
 * English
 
 * English
 
javascript:void(0);
 
  -
  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: Proposal: AOO 4.1.2

2014-10-24 Thread Rob Weir
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 4:00 AM, RA Stehmann
anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de wrote:
 On 23.10.2014 18:16, Rob Weir wrote:
 A short term goal, in addition to whatever 5.0 discussions we want to have.

 Let's try for a 4.1.2 release containing:

 1) Whatever new languages/language updates we have, including of
 course dictionary updates.

 2) Fixes for any critical bugs, especially any introduced in AOO
 4.1.1.  Do we know yet which bugs these are?   Do we have a short list
 of the most critical ones?

 3) Patches merged in from new dev volunteers.

 I think #3 is extremely important here.  Although not as evident to
 users, these small fixes and small enhancements reflect wins in the
 community.   We've had many new dev volunteers in the past few months
 working on easy fixes.   Let's try to help them get their good work
 into the hands of users via a release, and give us all the good
 feeling that comes from shipping code.

 So this might be a slower release, since we're focused on new
 volunteers and mentoring them takes time.   But I think this is a
 worthwhile investment in the community.

 What do you think?


 It's ok for an exceptional case, but normally we should follow the
 established release schema: x.y.0 and than x.y.1 and than either x+1.0.0
 or x.y+1.0.


That's fine.   I did not mean to argue for a deviation from the naming
scheme.  I was mainly trying to be explicit that we're working on a
small release, and suggesting the contents of that release.  We should
name it whatever makes sense.

The problem, as I saw it, is that some people think we're failing to
work on a 5.0 release when we're actually working on a smaller release
that does not yet have a wiki page.

-Rob


 It was communicated and is well known by the users, and we should
 demonstrate reliableness.

 I don`t like a x.y.5 or higher version for AOO. I love distinction ;-).

 Kind regards
 Michael



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



Re: OpenOffice lost again 6000 users (was: Improved OOXML support?)

2014-10-24 Thread Rob Weir
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Jörg Schmidt joe...@j-m-schmidt.de wrote:
 Hello,

 From: Andreas Säger [mailto:saege...@t-online.de]

 Being a customer, I do see things differently.
 Every OOXML file is a vote against ODF.

 theoretically correct, but practically?

 One day in future LO will save ODF as a secondary
 option.

 Possible.

 But where is the problem? Either OOXML *is* ISO standard or is not 
 ISO-standard.

 If the problem is however that MS is 'meddling' in the standard, then it is a 
 political issue that requires policy responses - not a question of software 
 development.

 Finally MS wins

 There is no tomorrow (or finally) for it - MS wins today.

 For example:
 http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Berliner-Finanzaemter-wechseln-zurueck-auf-Microsoft-Office-2430961.html

 MS comes up with the next shit

 life is not a pony farm and competition is not a throw with cotton balls. It 
 is about the competition and we have to face, and not whine.


To put it in perspective, since your note was sent, 6 hours ago, we've
had over 30,000 downloads of AOO.

I think we need to consider that there are two broad groups of users:

1) Those who choose which suite to use.

2) Those who have no choice, because their employer decides for them,
either directly, or via their selection of a Linux distribution.


For those who have a choice I think we do very well, especially for
those who also must pay themselves.   But clearly selling to a
corporation (or a government) is something else.   In some cases a
government has an internal champion who pushes adoption of open
source.   If he fails, he and the open source are gone.  But even if
he succeeds, he may later change jobs and his successor might have
other ideas.   I've seen this happen repeatedly in government with ODF
adoption.   What one energetic champion accomplishes is reversed by
someone later.

Regards,

-Rob



 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 volunteer

2014-10-24 Thread Rob Weir
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:32 AM, FR web forum ooofo...@free.fr wrote:
 Hello list,
 I answer frequently in Bugzilla.
 I propose to help and managing reports like set to Duplicate or Invalid.
 If you are interesting, I remain available.


Thanks.   This kind of database hygiene is always welcome.   I've
give you permissions in BZ so you can now edit bugs.

Regards,

-Rob


 -
 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



2015 -- Our 30th Anniversary

2014-10-24 Thread Rob Weir
Those who know the history know that Apache OpenOffice is the
continuation of the OpenOffice.org project, which itself came from a
proprietary suite developed in Germany called StarOffice, which itself
started as StarWriter, an application written in 1985 by Marco Börries
.

So next year, in 2015, will be our 30th anniversary.

Any ideas what we might do?

For example, does anyone still have a Zilog Z80 (or an emulator) that
can run the original StarWriter?

It looks like some emulators here:

http://www.z80.info/z80emu.htm#EMU_CPU_W32

It might be interesting to show the history of Writer, from release to
release, via a set of screen shots (or a movie) showing the evolution
of the UI.

Regards,

-Rob

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



Re: 2015 -- Our 30th Anniversary

2014-10-24 Thread Rob Weir
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Roberto Galoppini
roberto.galopp...@gmail.com wrote:
 2014-10-24 16:41 GMT+02:00 Rob Weir r...@robweir.com:

 Those who know the history know that Apache OpenOffice is the
 continuation of the OpenOffice.org project, which itself came from a
 proprietary suite developed in Germany called StarOffice, which itself
 started as StarWriter, an application written in 1985 by Marco Börries
 .

 So next year, in 2015, will be our 30th anniversary.

 Any ideas what we might do?

 For example, does anyone still have a Zilog Z80 (or an emulator) that
 can run the original StarWriter?


 I'm still a proud owner of a ZX Spectrum Sinclair 48k, never heard about a
 StarWriter app, though. Does it exist, ideas about to get it?


Cool!

This is from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarOffice#History

It references a page on our wiki that claims StarWriter 1.0 was
released in 1985.

No idea where to get the code.   Maybe Juergen or another old-timer
would have a clue for us?

-Rob

 Roberto




 It looks like some emulators here:

 http://www.z80.info/z80emu.htm#EMU_CPU_W32

 It might be interesting to show the history of Writer, from release to
 release, via a set of screen shots (or a movie) showing the evolution
 of the UI.

 Regards,

 -Rob

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



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



Re: Concerns about the AOO community

2014-10-23 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:31 AM, RA Stehmann
anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de wrote:
 Two thoughts:

 1. Concerned people found it problematically that OOo depended so much
 on SUN and later Oracle.

 So the situation under the roof of the Apache Software Foundation is a
 real progress. So we shouldn't complain that IBM doesn't try to dominate
 our project by creating new dependencies, but encourage people to join
 our project as developers and more companies to support us.

 2. For a Productivity Suite the release cycle is proper. Neither
 bigger companies nor smaller enterprises want to roll out a new version
 of an office suite each quarter. So even a bigger time lag between
 versions would fit.

 And the brand is so well known that we don't need press releases every
 month. We should continueing (and maybe force) our marketing activities;
 saying our users we make a non harum-scarum but firm progress.

 So concerns are needed but no lamenting. We should find out, what our
 opportunities are, and jump at them in time.


+1

Those who have been with the project for a while have seen the full
range of criticism:

-- IBM will not contribute to AOO at all.  IBM will just take code.

-- IBM will dominate the project with too many IBM developers

-- IBM will not contribute Symphony like they said they would

-- IBM will contribute Symphony but not any developers to work on it
They will just take code.

-- IBM has stuffed the project with Chinese developers with an intent
to force Symphony to be the new AOO

-- IBM does not have enough Chinese developers

-- IBM is not leading the project enough

One might ask, exactly how many IBM developers do we need in order to
elicit praise from the critics?  What is the magic number that is
neither too little nor too much?   Or, will critics merely complain,
regardless?

When the project started, I invoked the old proverb, The dogs may
bark but the caravan moves on.   We have more important things to
discuss than what dogs are barking today.

-Rob


 Regards
 Michael



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



Proposal: AOO 4.1.2

2014-10-23 Thread Rob Weir
A short term goal, in addition to whatever 5.0 discussions we want to have.

Let's try for a 4.1.2 release containing:

1) Whatever new languages/language updates we have, including of
course dictionary updates.

2) Fixes for any critical bugs, especially any introduced in AOO
4.1.1.  Do we know yet which bugs these are?   Do we have a short list
of the most critical ones?

3) Patches merged in from new dev volunteers.

I think #3 is extremely important here.  Although not as evident to
users, these small fixes and small enhancements reflect wins in the
community.   We've had many new dev volunteers in the past few months
working on easy fixes.   Let's try to help them get their good work
into the hands of users via a release, and give us all the good
feeling that comes from shipping code.

So this might be a slower release, since we're focused on new
volunteers and mentoring them takes time.   But I think this is a
worthwhile investment in the community.

What do you think?

-Rob

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



Re: Hunspell improvement idea for italic (foreign) words

2014-10-10 Thread Rob Weir
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
 Marco A.G.Pinto wrote:

 Microsoft Office 2010 suggests words to be changed to italic if they are
 foreign, at least for Portuguese. ...
 I was wondering if this could be implemented into Hunspell.


 Hunspell has no knowledge about formatting. The closest thing one could do
 in OpenOffice is to add an option not to check the words in italics.
 Something like the uppercase check that is available in Tools - Options -
 Language Settings - Writing Aids - Options. I have no idea of how hard it is
 (maybe OpenOffice strips formatting too before sending words to the spell
 checker!) but theoretically this could be investigated.


More elegant, but more work, would be tag the word or passage as
langen/lang or something like that, and then have AOO trigger
behavior based on that language tagging, possible including formatting
it as italics and ignoring it when spell checking, or using the
appropriate secondary dictionary, if available.

In other words, formatting and behavior comes from semantic tagging.
That extra level of indirection can be very useful.  It would allow,
for example, a future extension to give hover translations of
foreign expressions, etc.

-Rob


 Of course, words in italics would then simply be ignored, not checked
 against a dedicated dictionary as you propose.

 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: Concerns about the AOO community

2014-10-04 Thread Rob Weir
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 10:58 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
.
.
.

 Independent of the number of mails, It is a fact that this list, even
 though called dev@, contains nearly no development discussions nor does
 these discussions take place elsewhere publicly.

.
.
.

Hi Jan,  are you having problems with your list subscription?  You
might want to check the list archives to see if you missed posts.

In the last *half week*, since October 1st, we've had traffic on the
following development related threads:

1.  New dev volunteer Ankit looking for an issue to start working on.

2. Kay reporting she broke the build in helpcontent2 and fixed it.

3. Andrea reminding committers that SSH access will now require keys

4. Amali, a new dev volunteer, asking for help on fixing issue 111808

5. Zimuzo, a new volunteer, getting help leading to a successful build

6. Andrea confirming our FOSDEM devroom has been approved

7. Amali asking for another issue to work on,

8. Zimuzo asking for a review of his patch

9. Discussion on Release Manager for next release.

This is in addition to other more general project-related discussions.
  Remember, that is also what a dev list is for.


Regards,

-Rob

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



Re: release manager for the next release

2014-10-02 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,

 after a longer vacation and some silence in the past weeks I would like
 to discuss the release manager role.

 I think it's time that somebody else takes over this role and drives
 active the next release. I did it since the beginning of OpenOffice at
 Apache but I think it is a good opportunity for somebody to be more
 active in the community and take over some responsibility.


Hi Juergen,

Thanks, from all I assume, for your efforts in this area.  Not only
were you the Release Manager, but you defined the role itself for AOO,
a project with more complicated release requirements than most others
at Apache.

If someone was considering stepping in as the Release Manager for the
next release, what should they be looking at?  Is there a wiki page or
other documentation that defines the process?

Also, are you able to review and update (if needed) the available
documentation and/or help mentor the next Release Manager?Or do
you think this is all documented enough that someone can just step in
and RTFM?

Regards,

-Rob


 We have released some important milestones over the years and have
 enough experience and know what's necessary. Whoever takes over the
 release manager role won't be alone and will get the support from the
 community. In the same way I got it in the past.

 We had discussions about the way how to communicate and track the
 release planning and the progress and now it's the time that people can
 realize this. It's always room for improvements.

 The goal is that this somewhat important role is circulating and not
 depending on one person only. The releases are anyway a community effort
 and the release manager have to take care of some necessary formalism.

 And to make it easier a further goal is to be able to take binary builds
 from our build bots and release them. Currently we rely on builds made
 by community members but I think it's better to use official build bots
 for that. This means that we have to check the Windows build bot and the
 binaries if they can be used already or what is missing. It means that
 we need Linux build bots with the correct baseline or increase the
 baseline. And finally we need a Mac build bot. But this discussion
 should take place in a separate thread.

 For now I would like to invite all of you to think about the release
 manager role and if is something for you. I will not be available as
 release manager for the next release.

 Juergen

 -
 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: Concerns about the AOO community

2014-10-01 Thread Rob Weir
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote:
 On G+ I have hold a conversation with Bruce Byfield and Jos from KDE
 about the continuation of the Apache OpenOffice community and how the
 way that the community has enter lately into a dormant stage with very
 little traffic.

 Althought I do seem that is an exageration, I feel that is true that
 traffic has reach its lowest in several months. I wonder what is going
 on with the community as well as overal adoption and concern of a lack
 of marketing strategy.

 I would love to hear from the community managers to have an evaluation.


Community mangers?  Come on, you know that is not how we roll at Apache!

What is amazing to be is how much LO sees a merger of the projects as
a threat to them.

Here's the background.  At the LO conference one of the presenters
spoke in favor of merging LO with AOO, of combining the efforts.  This
was the IT Head from the Swiss Supreme Court IT office, who also said
that they preferred to use AOO for its superior stability compared to
LO.

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor/news/open-and-libre-office-projects-should-reunite

As you can imagine, having a speaker at a LO conference say nice
things about AOO and to suggest cooperation with AOO was an insult
that could not be permitted.   So LO marketing went into over-drive to
try to kill that message.  That's why we see articles like this, and
recent related blog posts by Simon and Charles.

But it does make me wonder:  What are they so afraid of?  Why do they
think the idea of cooperation so dangerous?   Why do they think that
users are so wrong to value stability and to think that the two
projects would work better together?


-Rob

 --
 Alexandro Colorado
 Apache OpenOffice Contributor
 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9  5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614

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


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



Re: Which project Instance has jurisdiction in disputes?

2014-09-26 Thread Rob Weir
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:25 AM, Jörg Schmidt joe...@j-m-schmidt.de wrote:
 From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org]

  My question is:
  Are the instructions on the following page valid:
  http://openoffice.apache.org/list-conduct.html

 They are valid.

  If so, then I'll make an official request to the PMC, and
 ask that the troll will be banned from the list.

 The PMC does not have super-powers or magic wands.

 Read 10 E in:
 http://openoffice.apache.org/list-conduct.html

 The decision of the PMC is final. says that the PMC have the last word. Or 
 not?


That was intended for cases where the troll appealed to the PMC.  We
were not thinking of it for disagreements among moderators.

 It will always be
 needed that a list moderator acts, and I feel it would be stupid to
 impose this on Michael if he is unwilling.
 The solution is that a committer [...]

 I do not understand the usefulness of the method.

 The situation is that a moderator does not want to do what keeps the majority 
 is right.

 Now, if a second moderator banned the troll that will anger the first 
 moderator.

 Why is this type of procedure well?


It is never easy and clean to ban someone from a mailing list.  Don't
expect simple answers that will make everyone happy.  It is messy,
ugly, but sometimes necessary.   In the history of the international
users list at AOO we've had to ban only one user.  And I don't think
we've banned anyone on any other list yet.   So it is very rare.

-Rob


 (including Joerg: you say you don't
 have time, but, if you think about it, the effort spent on this
 discussion is far more than what's needed to moderate a list)

 possible, but if I did I would be permanently in dispute with Michael because 
 I had to do what he himself does not want to, or he could do it but himself.

 How can that make sense? It will only cause we are both angry (Michael and I).



 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: Which project Instance has jurisdiction in disputes?

2014-09-24 Thread Rob Weir
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
 RA Stehmann wrote:

 I only refuse the way of acting Jörg wants to instruct me.
 We discussed that topic on the list. To ban an email address isn't very
 effective, because that person is able to join the mailing list with
 another email address.


 If the two of you disagree on how to handle a troll, the troll wins, you two
 lose, and the project loses (since we don't want to pollute the lists with
 long discussions on how to handle a troll).

 If he makes zero useful posts, just ban him and get rid of the problem. Sure
 he can register with a new address, and this is why Michael is correct in
 saying that people should really learn to ignore posts and not having public
 discussions on whether to ban him. But banning him will show that you are
 all on the same side.

 See http://openoffice.apache.org/list-conduct.html and if I were the
 moderator I would send a public reminder (and clearly you did discuss it on
 the list already, so the person is aware) and then ban him. The page above
 says what he should do if he feels abused by the moderator.


Maybe translate that page into German if it helps.

It is also possible to put a link to the conduct guidelines into the
template for list posts, so every lost will contain that link.

It is possible for a moderator to ban a user from posting, for a
specific email address.   Obviously a determined troll can create
other mail accounts.  But if they became abusive in this way then we'd
follow up with complaints to their ISP.

But I think the first step is to discuss conduct guidelines and get
agreement within the German community that these are the terms you
want to and agree to work with, and that moderators will enforce them.

Regards,

-Rob



 But some people react very angry. That seems to feed the troll.
 Now Jörg confides me anymore and that's very irksome for the
 germanophone community, There are sometimes strong disputes between him
 and me.


 Don't let any existing good relationship in the community be altered by a
 simple troll. This is what he wants to do!

 (All of this is generic; I haven't read the users-de archives for this
 specific case, but you two seem to agree that the individual is not posting
 anything useful)

 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: ApacheCon promotional tweets

2014-09-24 Thread Rob Weir
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
 Joe Brockmeier prepared some tweets about OpenOffice content at ApacheCon.
 They are good for using on the official @ApacheOO account and for any
 promotion to the conference you might want to do on social media (so, your
 own or the project's channels on Twitter, Facebook, Google+ etc.).


This is good.  I have them scheduled to go out over Twitter.

Thanks,

-Rob


 Full list here:
 http://s.apache.org/EwQ

 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



  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >