On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:27, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Khirano,
>
> I just noticed your mail never received a response. Sorry for that, reply
> online...
>
> Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
>
> On 6 Jun 2011, at 18:02, Kazunari Hirano wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It has been familiar with
On Jun 7, 2011 3:01 PM, "Simon Brouwer" wrote:
>
> Op 7-6-2011 22:37, William A. Rowe Jr. schreef:
>
>> On 6/7/2011 3:17 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote:
>>>
>>> The OpenOffice.org installation packages contain code from a
considerable number of
>>> "external" libraries (i.e. third party ones that are dev
Besides the content Oracle owns, it seems we could just ask the other owners
to give the CWS's to the ASF. I mean, really... *somebody* out there holds
the copyright. We just have to determine who, and then ask. Some definite
legwork, but it seems doable.
On Jun 7, 2011 10:15 AM, "Simon Phipps" wr
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 15:04, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> It's just a meeting between colleagues. If all it does is
> break a little of the entrenched ice I'd call it a success.
>
> Sure beats email for dealing with emotions/trust.
Right.
And we can also be optimistic that the Incubator will vote the
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 14:31, eric b wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le 6 juin 11 à 20:21, Greg Stein a écrit :
>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 14:18, Alexandro Colorado
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll surrely can make it to the US if needed. OSCON is good, but would
>>
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 14:17, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 6/6/11 13:50, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
>> How about we drop these lines of discussion, and simply follow Ross'
>> advice and focus on "what is needed by the Incubator PMC to accept
>> this proposal?&quo
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 14:18, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 14:08, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> > On 6 Jun 2011, at 19:03, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
>> >...
>> >> However, it seems
Good one :-)
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 14:11, Donald Whytock wrote:
> Actually, "land-grab" isn't an invalid analogy. Think of a
> mountain...Imagine some enterprising nonprof manages to buy a scenic
> mountain. A cadre of volunteers sees to it, cleaning up litter and
> the occasional forest fire.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 14:08, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On 6 Jun 2011, at 19:03, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
>...
>> However, it seems to me that October and November are still rather far
>> off, and with the wealth of conferences over the next two months,
>> perhaps we could set something up sooner than t
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 13:37, Simos Xenitellis
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> On 6/6/11 11:26, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Richard S. Hall
>>> wrote:
On 6/6/11 10:41, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
>
> Hi Richard
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:46, Florian Effenberger
wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-06 18.36:
>...
>> The software grant is a "done deal". I happen to believe the proposal
>> will be accepted, but it is not a "done deal".
>
> Ah, okay - so th
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:17, Florian Effenberger
wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-06 18.06:
>>>
>>> The reality is that IBM employees wearing their IBM hats, have made it
>>> > crystal clear on the general@incubator list that IBM is going to force
>>> > The Apache Foundation
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:46, Ian Lynch wrote:
>...
> And the natural extension is that if there is no home for the OOo code with
> Apache where will it end up? That scenario is not without risk either.
As I've said elsewhere, I would lobby our Board for an unsupported
tarball of the granted code
Bah. It is solving a nonexistent problem. Sit back, and enjoy life instead.
On Jun 6, 2011 6:59 AM, "Ian Lynch" wrote:
> On 6 June 2011 11:34, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
>> IMHO - if there is any such risk - we 1) should both help the regulators
>> understand the situation better and 2) do th
Hey. Feel free to spin your theories.
It just isn't possible to divide markets around ALv2 code.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 03:10, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> Am 06.06.2011 08:22, schrieb Greg Stein:
>> This is just not a concern. Please end this thread. There is
>> no problem, s
Whatever. This is just not a concern. Please end this thread. There is
no problem, so this is just noise.
-g
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 00:44, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> wrote:
>> The problem here is that Rob and Sam and other well-known employee
st in case we
> mess up moving it into the Apache infrastructure and need a do-over.
>
> It is not about leaving the incubator or anything. I think of it as baked
> prudence with a sauce of transparency. I'm surprised this is a problem, but
> then I are a simple man ...
nto the Apache
> infrastructure, build what can be built, see what the deltas are, etc.
>
> This sort of preservation and assessment seems indispensible in getting going
> and seeing what the opportunities are.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst..
Right. In short, there is no way to "divide the market" when you're
talking about ALv2 licensing. Everybody has equal access to very
permissively-licensed software.
It is not a worry. Move along, please.
Cheers,
-g
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 23:51, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> The problem here is th
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 17:18, Andy Brown wrote:
>...
> 1: What will happen to OOo's code and trademark if the podling is not
> approved?
>
> 2: What will happen to OOo's code and trademark if the project does not
> graduate?
I believe the answer is the same for both of these questions, and with
t
Michael has posted here already, and will do so when he wants to make
a statement. We don't need the reposting.
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 23:14, Keith Curtis wrote:
> He wrote this yesterday and it describes in different words why the
> Apache license is not so pragmatic for LibreOffice.
> -
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 21:03, Andy Brown wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:07, Alexandro Colorado
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just updated the proposal to prov
1].
> Am 06.06.11 02:13, schrieb Niall Pemberton:
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
>> There are 146 projects listed on OpenOffice.org - all with mailing
>> lists. Last time I read the proposal, it wasn't clear how many of
>> these are ac
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:07, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> I just updated the proposal to provide more detail on the requested
>> mailing lists. Figured it would be good to discuss here.
>>
>> This i
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 20:17, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> There are terms about redistribution that must be respected. Please read the
>> license - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
>>
>> This will help you properly research the to
I just updated the proposal to provide more detail on the requested
mailing lists. Figured it would be good to discuss here.
This is what I entered into the wiki:
The following mailing lists:
oo-...@incubator.apache.org - for developer discussions
oo-comm...@incubator.apache.org - for Subver
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 18:18, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile <
> ariel.constenla.ha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>...
>> I don't see the MySQL Connector module there
>> http://hg.services.openoffice.org/DEV300/file/DEV300_m106/mysqlc
>>
>> Another importan
Totally offtopic, but
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:59, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>...
>> 2. The amount of work that will be required to rework dependencies.
>
> Not a blocker for starting incubation. Keep in mind that the podling may
> elect to "release" via the libreoffice infrastructure, which giv
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:24, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On 5 Jun 2011, at 19:15, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:05, William A. Rowe Jr.
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>...
>>>> What I am still waiting to hear
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:19, Florian Effenberger
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-05 20.03:
>
>>> That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
>>> saying everyone "Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:05, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on
>> this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is now focusing in
>> on topics more relevant to this
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 13:54, Florian Effenberger
wrote:
>...
> That point has been repeaded over and over again, but basically you are
> saying everyone "Do not set up your own foundation at all, we alreadyh have
> enough."
I don't know that Robert B-D said that, or anybody else. *I* certainly
s
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:20, Simon Phipps wrote:
>...
> Just to drag the point here from the other thread where it was made, the
> problem is less the size of the code (although it is enormous and will make
> a great stress test for the SVN team :-) ) and more the need for frequent
Nah. OOo won'
On Jun 4, 2011 6:25 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton"
wrote:
>...
> 2. With regard to building distributions, binary libraries are terribly
awkward unless Apache were to limit its OpenOffice project to a single
platform and programming model. In contrast, LibreOffice is going full-up
C++ and the Java depe
On Jun 4, 2011 10:08 AM, "Florian Effenberger" <
flo...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Julien Vermillard wrote on 2011-06-04 16.05:
>
>> In short : taxes (US taxes) saving donnating stuff to non profit org.
>
>
> where is this different from a German entity where donations are
tax-deduc
On Jun 4, 2011 9:43 AM, wrote:
>
> I've heard some valid concerns about hardware resources needed to build
> OpenOffice. Since I just happen to know a company that is in the hardware
> business, I might be able to get them to help out in this department. But
> I wanted to first check on what the
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 01:07, Andrew Rist wrote:
>
>> Also, besides main apps, is Oracle donating it's Oracle OOo extensions?
>> Such as: PDF Import, Presenter Console, WebLog Publisher, Professional
>> Template Packs, MySQL Connector, etc.
>
> Our approach is to start with the main open source co
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 23:48, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> The extensive LibreOffice user-documentation project is producing
> GPL3[+]/CC-by3.0 dual-licensed documents. I assume that CC-by is not toxic
> for Apache, since it is the closest CC license to permissive (i.e., it is at
> least as per
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 22:25, wrote:
>...
> Simon,
>
> Could you say a little of when you had in mind with this segment:
>
> "potentially highly complementary focus on the GNU/Linux community as well
> as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users"
>
> By one definition, "complementary" means non-over
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 21:07, Cor Nouws wrote:
> [Picking a random mail in this thread]
>
> I have a suggestion by the wiki-proposal.
>
> I read
> " Reliance on Salaried Developers
> ...
> Ensuring the long term stability of OpenOffice.org is a major
> reason for establishing the project at Apa
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 20:36, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 02:23)
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws wrote:
>...
>>> I don't see any smack in it. I read he is giving his opinion in a polite
>>> manner. (Have seen different quotes
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:49, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote (04-06-11 01:10)
>
>> That is the key difference. general@incubator is not talking to the
>> press.
>
> It is an Apache process. Seems logic to me that you do not talk to the press
> about that (at th
ntribution/#lists>
>
> I suggest the steering-disc...@documentationfoundation.org or, if you find
> that too forward (or if posting is restricted), just
> disc...@documentfoundation.org for starters.
>
> - Dennis
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> F
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:23, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> (like our invitation to general@incubator) ... Did I miss it?
>
> Actually I have not seen any invitations from anyone associated with this
> proposal on the Lib
Discussion should appear here, rather than on the wiki. Leaving quick
questions and thoughts is fine, but for actual discussion: here.
Cheers,
-g
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:11, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> I've edited it a tiny bit and may do more. If we get into a Wikipedia
> edit-reversion war
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 17:57, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Michael is repeating some invariants that he and other LO/TDF people
> have stated, politely and consistently, since the inception of this
> discussion. They are committed to copyleft, they see dependencies with
> copyleft, their vision of OO
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:53, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> As a Incubator PMC member, I'd like to hear what the TDF folks think about
> this suggested path.
>> In the end the people who do the day-to-day work will end up collaborating
> or not...But, here's
>> my +1 that implies that i'd like folks wh
Excellent. Thanks, Simon!
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:16, Simon Phipps wrote:
> I suggest:
>
> "The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
> community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the
> GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac co
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:50, Cor Nouws wrote:
>...
> Jim Jagielski wrote (03-06-11 22:14)
>>
>> Posts such as:
>>
>>
>> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3935136/LibreOffice-340-Released-as-OpenOffice-Heads-to-Apache.htm
>>
>> certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived d
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:01, wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, wrote:
>> >...
>> > This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
>>
>> This is the section o
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 17:05, Benson Margulies wrote:
> instead of to the whole shebang.
>>
>> Bah. Outdated concept. In Apache Subversion, we simply ask the
>> committer to constrain themselves to certain areas. No need to get
>> technical about it. The trust metric applies very well, *especiall
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:42, Kevin Lau wrote:
> First time posting to this list and has been reading it for few days now.
>
> Permit my naive question, can both organizations (TDF and Apache) separate
> from their own licensing dependencies and establish an independent entity
> (or something that
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:29, Simon Phipps wrote:
>...
> text in the wiki doesn't give that assurance. I'm also suggesting it's
> /such/ a big deal for the open source community at large that
> openoffice.org resolve to a working and current site without
> interruption ...
I don't think there is
http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:29, wrote:
> I plan on updating the proposal on the wiki over the week-end. I'm going
> to start a series of threads on various sections of the proposal that I
> think are a bit thin and which I could use some help with.
>
>
> For "Relati
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:12, Benson Margulies wrote:
> PMCs at Apache have a wide latitude in managing the meritocracy. The
> simplest answer is the high-trust answer: if you demonstrate that you
> are a responsible contributor, you get commit access, and the PMC
> trusts that you won't abuse it
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:22, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> Anything else reeks of this being shoved down people's throats by
>> people gave this days, weeks or even a month of deliberation already.
>> Your invitation to start the vote NOW come
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12, wrote:
>...
> This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal. So we should be
This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal.
Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:30, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to
relicense all of the contributions it has received.
>>>
>>> As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under open source
>>> licenses alone and unlike ASF does not r
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50, wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM:
>
>>
>> Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
>> from ASF into their products.
>>
>
> This is true, but would you call that collaboration?
AB
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:14, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>...
>> color me confused: first Simon slams the ASF for not actively
>> engaging TDF and others (although we, of course, did) but now
>> his suggestion is to basically ignore each other...
>
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:27, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> wrote:
>>
>> What might be reasonably hoped for is that the ASF could act as an
>> upstream for GPLv3 office product(s) with a reunited community
>> spanning these projects (as widely as ideolo
Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
from ASF into their products.
(and typo in the first sentence)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:03, wrote:
> I'm perceiving that we're circling around on the same points with no new
> options coming up. So I'd like to record the sta
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 13:50, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
>> Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
>> all
>> of the contributions it has received.
>
>
> As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under o
Eh? I thought we were already a sausagefest?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:16, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Can we launch the Apache Sausage Project?
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 03/06/2011 16:09, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Ross Gar
I don't see any of this discussion about numbers being helpful, only
divisive. "My numbers are right." "No, they're not. See?" "But those numbers
are too small."
Get over it already, people. Find something substative to discuss.
-g
On Jun 3, 2011 1:22 AM, "Norbert Thiebaud" wrote:
> On Thu, Jun
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 20:22, wrote:
>...
> The only concrete thing I've heard so far is the question of whether
> subversion can handle the project.
I would be extremely surprised if Subversion could not handle it. I'd
like to know more about the problems that the OO.o devs ran into.
> Are th
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 19:06, Steve Loughran wrote:
> On 01/06/2011 17:33, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
>...
>> have the exactly numbers, but there are significant users of the following
>> OpenOffice derivatives:
>>
>> - LibreOffice
>> - IBM Lotus Symphony
>> - EuroOffice
>> - BrOffice (which so
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:55, wrote:
> dsh wrote on 06/02/2011 04:44:26 PM:
>
>>
>> IMHO "the project" is "on track" the community just needs to discuss
>> some more things and sort them out. It is just that I don't even think
>> it's required to provide proof-points based on "questionable"
>> a
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:40, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
>> code and it didn't work well for a project this size.
>
> Tangential to the responses you've already received, I'm curious as to the
> problems you experienced with Sub
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:26, Christian Lippka wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The Open Office Proposal Wiki currently lists a subversion repository as a
> required resource.
>
> We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main code
> and it didn't
> work well for a project this size. I
in a
> commercial environment if you want to "performance measure" people
> that way.
>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:05, dsh wrote:
>>>...
>>> Final note on commit log ana
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:05, dsh wrote:
>...
> Final note on commit log analysis - if that's a criterion how to
> define an active ASF "participant" my most active times are certainly
> pretty dated but of course I would know how to teak commit logs to
> make me look more active if I'd ever like
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 15:48, Charles-H. Schulz
wrote:
>...
> Well, would you be happy with the second part of the sentence you're
> alluding to? To repeat it, LibreOffice and the Document Foundation embody de
> facto most of the OpenOffice.org community, and even beyond.
I certainly would agree
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:19, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>...
> I guess I've seen too many failures to launch at incubator to support any
> more projects coming in which are not in the realistic position to publish
> working results as AL works. So without these answers, I personally would
> vote
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:23, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>...
> Is this correct? From what we've witnessed, the Board appears to have
> presented this to the incubator on behalf of the proposers. Although this
> doesn't change the need for the incubator to vote to accept the podling,
> it does s
I don't think these statistics have any real relevance to the goal of
evaluating the Proposal and whether it makes sense.
Whether somebody has committed or not, the only question is "do they
have an interest in being part of the community?"
Whether one group has more committers than the other doe
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:25, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>...
> Everyone else would be just as happy or even happier if the
> OO code base, trademarks, etc. where simply donated to TDF.
Please don't speak for me under that "everyone else". As long as the
TDF maintains a copyleft stance, then I am ha
Hey Michael!
Thanks for the detailed response about your position, thoughts,
concerns, and philosophy. It helps greatly to understand where you're
coming from. Rather than debate you on your philosophy ;-) ... I'll
answer a few key points in your email below:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:07, Michael
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:07, Simon Brouwer wrote:
> Op 2-6-2011 15:30, Greg Stein schreef:
>...
>> I would suggest adding a "Non-code Contributors" table into the
>> proposal and putting your name in there. We don't have precedent for
>> it, so may as w
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 09:43, wrote:
> Simon Brouwer wrote on 06/02/2011 09:21:53 AM:
>...
>> Some concern has been expressed that, if the meritocratic system in
>> Apache is based on code contribution only, those community members are
>> not able to fully become part of the OpenOffice.org Apach
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 09:21, Simon Brouwer wrote:
> Op 2-6-2011 15:04, Greg Stein schreef:
>...
>> If you would like to contribute here (possibly instead of, or in
>> addition, to your work at TDF), then yes! Please add yourself into the
>> proposal on the wiki.
>
>
On Jun 2, 2011 4:32 AM, "Alexandro Colorado" wrote:
>...
> There is currently a bit rearagement movement toward figuring things out in
> TDF OOo previously to the OOo annoucement, which happened last month on the
> marketing list in OOo.
> http://openoffice.org/projects/marketing/lists/dev/archive
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 22:52, wrote:
>...
> What am I missing here?
>
> According to the Incubation Policy [1]:
>
> "A Sponsor SHALL be either:
>
> * the Board of the Apache Software Foundation;
> * a Top Level Project (TLP) within the Apache Software Foundation
> (where the TLP considers t
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 21:41, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
>
> On 2011-06-01, at 20:18 , Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> [cc'ing Italo and Louis hopefully they have joined the incubator list
>> already, but just in case]
>
> Thanks. I actually have already joined it.
> So, to the list: Wave of hand signify
> Cheers
> Daniel
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 01/06/2011 22:26, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 17:20, Benson Margulies
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Ross
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 17:20, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 01/06/2011 19:51, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
>>>
>>> dsh wrote on 06/01/2011 02:16:58 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> And is it generally held to be a criterion
>>> for a podling to graduate
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 15:04, eric b wrote:
> Hi,
>
> First, apologies for the new thread, due to my late arrival on this list.
>
> As developer for OpenOffice.org since 2005, and having some knowledge in OOo
> source code, I'm interested to contribute to the new OpenOffice.org (as
> dev).
>
> Whe
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 14:56, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:24 PM, wrote:
>
>> We could have put a much longer list of IBM names on this list, developers
>> familiar with the code base via their work on Lotus Symphony (which is our
>> OpenOffice based project). But then we c
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:34, Luke Kowalski wrote:
> we were instructed to send the proposal to an email address.
> Should we go and hack at the wiki now? No issues, either way.
Thanks for the offer, but we're all good. The proposal came through just fine.
Cheers,
-g
---
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:21, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Thanks for this exciting proposal. I have a few questions.
>
> There are only two initial committers identified in the proposal. Why only
> two for such a large codebase?
Hopefully more will show up. As with other podlings, we're usually
quite l
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:12, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>> don't know if OpenOffice is an exception, but usually Proposals are done
>> here:
>>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/
>>
>> There is no requirement to use the Wiki. I've attached the text of the .ODT
>> file in the message below.
>
> T
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:57, Christian Grobmeier
wrote:
> Hello Luke,
>
> don't know if OpenOffice is an exception, but usually Proposals are done
here:
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/
There is no requirement to use the Wiki. I've attached the text of the .ODT
file in the message below.
Abs
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 15:11, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> It's my understanding that all voting takes place during a 72 hour period.
> If that period ends on a weekend then it's customary to wait until Monday to
> complete.
I've always considered weekends fair game. In fact, that may be when
some
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 22:45, Ralph Goers wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 20:47, Ralph Goers
>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> OK - Have they explicitly OK'd Apache Wave? While Apache Wave would
>>> cert
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 20:47, Ralph Goers wrote:
>...
> OK - Have they explicitly OK'd Apache Wave? While Apache Wave would
> certainly be unique to Apache, if Google intends to keep using Google Wave
> (and Wave as a shorthand) this would get very confusing.
Don't you think that by proposing
A full transcription shouldn't be necessary. Just bring a summary of
discussion points back to the list, along with any recommendations.
The list can then sort through it and make decisions.
We have off-list discussions all the time (IM, IRC, in-person). We
don't transcribe those. We just bring th
The Board passed this resolution unanimously about two hours ago.
Welcome to TLP status!
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 03:47, Greg Stein wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I've added the resolution for the Thrift graduation to the Board's
> agenda (for the meeting on Wednesday).
>
>
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:20, Martijn Dashorst
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> added one para about bylaws/particiption). Where did you copy your original
>> from
>> before search/replace? I'd like to fix that source material.
>
>
Hey all,
I've added the resolution for the Thrift graduation to the Board's
agenda (for the meeting on Wednesday).
Brian: I've made some edits from your initial resolution to align it
with our standard template. (mostly minor stuff, but added one para
about bylaws/particiption). Where did you cop
both got marked as conflict.
>
> Anyway, SVN is the way to go for now.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Fri, 10/1/10, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>
>> From: Jochen Wiedmann
>> Subject: Re: Podling to use native git
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Da
601 - 700 of 925 matches
Mail list logo
