On 30/10/2011 01:27, Marc-André Laverdière wrote:
I know that I am skipping a lot of the back-and-forth here, but let me point
out the elephant in the room...
Why forums in the first place?
I think that most people on the mailing list know about stack exchange, and
how rockin' it is. I think
Who in their right mind want forums?
If you want exchange of ideas, mailing lists are great. If you want a
solution to your problem, Forums just stink. Stack overflow was designed to
overcome the limitations of old school forums. Why go back?
Actually, we should think about how to port the old
Well, it turns out many people seem to want to use forums, and most of
them are not technical, they are end users so I don't expect they have
the same needs as developers. I just assume there's no fundamental truth
in either mailing list or forums usage...
Best,
Charles.
Le 30/10/2011 13:42,
Seeing is believing sometimes...
On 30 Oct 2011 08:50, Charles-H. Schulz
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Well, it turns out many people seem to want to use forums, and most of
them are not technical, they are end users so I don't expect they have
the same needs as developers. I
Hi,
Jonathan Aquilina wrote on 2011-10-29 14:55:
If you opt to name one as an official TDF mirror it wont take me a
second to setup a TDF section and LO section for use.
what is the URL of your existing forum, so I can have a look?
I am wondering though if you go for self hosted solution i
On 30/10/2011 16:40, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Hi,
Jonathan Aquilina wrote on 2011-10-29 14:55:
If you opt to name one as an official TDF mirror it wont take me a
second to setup a TDF section and LO section for use.
what is the URL of your existing forum, so I can have a look?
I am
On 30/10/2011 16:40, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Hi,
Jonathan Aquilina wrote on 2011-10-29 14:55:
If you opt to name one as an official TDF mirror it wont take me a
second to setup a TDF section and LO section for use.
what is the URL of your existing forum, so I can have a look?
I am
Le 2011-10-30 11:40, Florian Effenberger a écrit :
Single sign-on is indeed something I'd like to see soon, but there are
no concrete plans as of now. One option would be OpenID, another one an
LDAP connection - let's see what we can come up with. ;-)
Florian
OpenId is the option that users
Hello,
It has been a while since I have blogged about the Foundation status,
but the Steering Committee have been very active on this topic in the
meantime. Now that we are handing over to the new Board of Directors, it
is good to document where we have reached.
First, we are delighted that
+
On 30 Oct 2011 13:49, Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com wrote:
Le 2011-10-30 11:40, Florian Effenberger a écrit :
Single sign-on is indeed something I'd like to see soon, but there are
no concrete plans as o...
OpenId is the option that users would be most familiar, there are many
sites using
+1 for open id.
Sorry for the extra email... my phone's touch screen is a bit off
sometimes.
On 30 Oct 2011 13:49, Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com wrote:
Le 2011-10-30 11:40, Florian Effenberger a écrit :
Single sign-on is indeed something I'd like to see soon, but there are
no concrete plans
I have no desire to get in the middle of this.
I do have some interesting statistics gleaned from the current OpenOffice.org
Forums for another purpose earlier today. Here is something about the scale
and level of interest that exists even now, independent of the current status
of releases
Um, lest I confuse everyone: After the English language forum, the French and
then the Spanish language forums are the next most active in terms of
registered users and other statistics. The remainder are in the 1,000-2,000
range and then Vietnamese is the smallest. I don't have figures for
Le 2011-10-30 20:15, Dennis E. Hamilton a écrit :
Um, lest I confuse everyone: After the English language forum, the French and
then the Spanish language forums are the next most active in terms of
registered users and other statistics. The remainder are in the 1,000-2,000
range and then
Hello Simon,
Le 30/10/2011 10:27, Simon Phipps a écrit :
On 29 Oct 2011, at 17:47, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Hello,
following today's SC/BoD phone conference, I'd hereby like to propose, based
on André's suggestion, that the to be elected membership committee will
consist of
Hello,
just to have it official: I'd hereby like to nominate Thorsten Behrens
as election officer for the upcoming membership committee elections.
As Thorsten is elected BoD member, he is not running for an MC seat, and
thus should have no conflict of interest in acting as election officer.
Hi,
2011/10/30 Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org
Hello,
André Schnabel wrote on 2011-10-26 21:48:
as we have discussed previously, the paragraphs about the membership
committee in the current statutes draft differ in some points from what we
have in the bylaws. I hope, I
Hi,
David Emmerich Jourdain wrote on 2011-10-30 16:28:
IMHO, I don't see why can we not adopt this option. The current MC proved
that was (and is) impartial and deeply focused on meritocracy, essential
factors for an MC.
For me, the current MC proved that's fully deserving of this gentlemen's
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 30 Oct 2011, at 15:34, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Hi,
Charles-H. Schulz wrote on 2011-10-30 16:34:
+1 from my side... do we only need one?
IMHO one is enough, as we had it for the BoD elections.
Note that, for
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hello,
just to have it official: I'd hereby like to nominate Thorsten Behrens as
election officer for the upcoming membership committee elections.
As Thorsten is elected BoD member, he is not running
Hi,
Am 30.10.2011 17:09, schrieb Norbert Thiebaud:
Maybe we can do with the current MC as 'initially designated' for the
first 6 month of the foundation and organize a MC election then, since
it would be a good idea to have BoD election and MC election somewhat
separated to avoid
Based on the statutes, the BoD is in charge of defining the size of the MC,
with the limitations of having at least three people, and not more than 10%
of the total members (i.e. 13-15 people right now, IIRC).
I'd ask all BoD members to vote on the above proposal. My vote: +1
+1
--
Jesús
Hi,
2011/10/30 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net:
Hi,
Am 30.10.2011 17:09, schrieb Norbert Thiebaud:
Maybe we can do with the current MC as 'initially designated' for the
first 6 month of the foundation and organize a MC election then, since
it would be a good idea to have BoD election
Hello,
Norbert Thiebaud wrote on 2011-10-30 17:20:
I agree: the BoD election should be supervised by the MC and
vice-versa. The 'Election Officer' is just the point man, the
'executive officer'. He can be any member designated by the body
having oversight of the election.
indeed. The BoD
Hello,
sorry for spamming you so massively today, but I want to use the free
day to get some formal things done for TDF.
The current statutes (which you will soon have in a translated English
version) foresee, as it is a legal requirement in Germany, that there
will be two chairmen: One
Hi :)
Florian. It is good to have these issues dealt with. There is no need to
apologise for 'spam' as it is all relevant and important stuff. If these issue
weren't raised today they would have to be raised another day and they are the
type of thing that is good to deal with and get out of
Hi Florian, *,
Am Sonntag, 30. Oktober 2011, 19:44:02 schrieb Florian Effenberger:
Hello,
sorry for spamming you so massively today, but I want to use the free
day to get some formal things done for TDF.
I assist you in spamming a bit ;-)
(...)
The statues do not set explicit rules on
27 matches
Mail list logo
