we were instructed to send the proposal to an email address.
Should we go and hack at the wiki now? No issues, either way.
On 6/1/2011 9:00 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:57, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com
mailto:grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Luke,
don't know
OpenOffice.org will be contributed to Apache Software Foundation by Oracle
Corporation in compliance with ASF licensing and governance.
Luke, could you offer some insight into affixing the Apache License v2.0
to this code base? Only ALv2 code is released by the foundation.
LGPL/MPL cannot
I am stil catching up for the discussion, but.. to add clarity i'll try to
put as much information from the other discussions at OOo Marketing list.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
FYI:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Louis Suarez-Potts
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:04 PM, eric b eric.bach...@free.fr 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
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 1, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 15:04, eric b eric.bach...@free.fr wrote:
Hi,
First, apologies for the new thread, due to my late arrival on this
list.
As developer for
Hi all -
I see that I'm listed as a sponsor. Can you please remove my name and replace
with someone else? I never agreed to sponsor this.
Sorry about any inconvenience.
geir
On Jun 1, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Luke Kowalski wrote:
The following project is being sent in as an incubator
On 6/1/2011 8:41 PM, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
My questions then are absolutely pragmatic and relate—hence the to post—to
issues not so far discussed:
* Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
* We at OOo receive lots of requests to use it for mostly good purposes. We
grant these,
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:23 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
On 6/1/2011 1:24 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote on 06/01/2011 12:21:23 PM:
There are only two initial committers identified in the proposal. Why
only two for such a
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:31 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote on 06/01/2011 03:01:50
PM:
What is a more serious question, how many bug fixes would go into
LibreOffice without being offered to the ASF under the AL? LO has no
copyright
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:23 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 6/1/2011 1:24 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
From a practical perspective it would have been impossible to do all of
that recruitment without this proposal becoming public prematurely. So the
majority of the
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 21:41, Louis Suarez-Potts lsuarezpo...@gmail.com
wrote:
* Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
[snip] I'm sure our legal folks can get that
cleared up, should OOo be accepted into the
Hi,
For the record, I added the Education Project idea on the wiki page
(http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal).
The idea we defend since several years, is to work with High Schools
and Universities, train students, detect potential good ideas, write
code (contribute back
On 02/06/2011 10:30, eric b wrote:
Hi,
For the record, I added the Education Project idea on the wiki page
(http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal).
The idea we defend since several years, is to work with High Schools and
Universities, train students, detect potential good ideas,
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
-- One thing that struck me today is that it is almost arcane mystical
knowledge, for anyone outside of Apache, how exactly to affix their name
in support of this proposal as a proposed initial committer, or even that
this was
Threads are fine, as long as they are really threads ;)
On Jun 2, 2011, at 1:25 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Dumb question. Are we obligated to converse like this, in a single email
thread, for the duration of the proposal review process? Is this an
organizing principle? Would I
Let's use the Wiki to craft up the latest rev... Much easier for
people not on the mailing lists.
On Jun 1, 2011, at 12:34 PM, 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.
On 6/1/2011 9:00
On Jun 1, 2011, at 10:58 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 6/1/2011 8:41 PM, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
My questions then are absolutely pragmatic and relate—hence the to post—to
issues not so far discussed:
* Apache Foundation owns the trademark to OOo?
* We at OOo receive lots of
On 02/06/2011 11:39, Florian Effenberger wrote:
I hope you don't mind if I jump in to the discussion.
Thank you for doing so. Speaking as someone outside all the involved
communities I'm pleased to hear your voice. I'm not equipped to answer
your questions, I'll leave that to people who know
Rob, thanks for your question.
OpenOffice integration is a minor issue compared to Hibernate and some
other packages which require code changes. Openmeetings uses
OpenOffice service via socket. Having the common license helps, for
example, putting both into one distribution package.
--
With best
Yep and that's why I just felt tempted that it is important to
just point out that people just lost the to me in my message ;)
Cheers
Daniel
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:18 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Ease up... people just lost the to me in your message. And others
didn't see it in the
Luke, the proposal meanwhile arrived in the wiki:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Luke Kowalski luke.kowal...@oracle.com wrote:
we were instructed to send the proposal to an email address.
Should we go and hack at the wiki now? No issues,
Jim -- thanks for reaching out to the OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice
communities with your emails. This is important.
Since you've already started with the invites, I wonder if I could
recommend to you one more? Another significant party that works in the
core OpenOffice source code is
Hi Ross,
On 2011-06-02 at 12:09 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
Instead I would like to
understand if this technical objective of breaking OOo code into
reusable libraries that the various forks can collaborate on, is part of
the TDF mission.
I am one of the LibreOffice developers. I am not
On Jun 2, 2011 4:32 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@openoffice.org 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.
On 2 June 2011 14:04, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Should we add ourselfs as commiters?
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.
I'm not likely to commit code. I run
Op 2-6-2011 15:04, Greg Stein schreef:
On Jun 2, 2011 4:32 AM, Alexandro Coloradoj...@openoffice.org 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.
Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 09:12:10 AM:
From: Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: 06/02/2011 09:12 AM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
On 2 June 2011 14:04, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Should we add ourselfs as
On Jun 2, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Simon Brouwer wrote:
proposal on the wiki.
I had already been so bold as to adding myself to the list, expressing my
support to the proposal. I was wondering though. In the
OpenOffice.orgproject, many community members contribute in other ways than
committing
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 09:21, Simon Brouwer simon.o...@xs4all.nl 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.
I had already been
Hi Robert, all,
I'd like to mention that OpenOffice.org is to be consistently written as
such, not omitting the .org, because there are various companies around
the world that have preceding rights to the name Open Office or similar.
Best regards,
Simon
Op 2-6-2011 15:27,
Simon Brouwer simon.o...@xs4all.nl wrote on 06/02/2011 09:21:53 AM:
Should we add ourselfs as commiters?
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.
I had already been so
On 02/06/2011 14:12, Ian Lynch wrote:
On 2 June 2011 14:04, Greg Steingst...@gmail.com wrote:
Should we add ourselfs as commiters?
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 02/06/2011 14:21, Simon Brouwer wrote:
Op 2-6-2011 15:04, Greg Stein schreef:
On Jun 2, 2011 4:32 AM, Alexandro Coloradoj...@openoffice.org wrote:
...
There is currently a bit rearagement movement toward figuring things
out in
TDF OOo previously to the OOo annoucement, which happened last
On Jun 2, 2011, at 9:43 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
What isn't clear to me are things like the following:
1) A strong QA member, who does manual testing, enters defect reports,
does smoke tests, etc. How do they advance in the meritocracy? Is there
any opportunity for them to
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 09:43, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Simon Brouwer simon.o...@xs4all.nl 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
Op 2-6-2011 15:30, Greg Stein schreef:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 09:21, Simon Brouwersimon.o...@xs4all.nl 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
Every Apache project's PMC has a duty and responsibility to award commit
privileges to individuals who contribute to the project and, when warranted,
invite those people to participate in the project management committee. The
conditions the PMC chooses to use to base their decisions on who to
Hi Ross,
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 12:09 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
However, I do have a binding vote here and therefore I have a
couple of questions for you:
..
Are the goals of the TDF the same as the goals of this proposal
to the Apache Software Foundation.
I would say they are
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:07, Simon Brouwer simon.o...@xs4all.nl 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 well start with something. We can
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:10 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote on 06/01/2011 02:56:10
PM:
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
Here's how to sign up as an initial committer for the OOo podling.
Go to the page http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal
Log in using the login button at the top left. If you don't have a
wiki account, create one now.
Once logged in, update the Initial Committers section with
Simon Brouwer wrote on Jun 2, 2011 6:21:30 am:
I had already been so bold as to adding myself to the list,
expressing my support to the proposal. I was wondering though. In the
OpenOffice.org project, many community members contribute in other
ways than committing code, for example by writing or
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:25, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com 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
Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote on 06/02/2011
06:39:12 AM:
This would not only be about reinventing the wheel, but also about
splitting the community, leading to disadvantages for end-users,
contributors, and enterprises.
I'd like to challenge your assertion
On Jun 2, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Simon Brouwer wrote:
I had already been so bold as to adding myself to the list, expressing my
support to the proposal. I was wondering though. In the OpenOffice.org
project, many community members contribute in other ways than committing
code, for example by
On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
Sure - there are lots of nice side effects of rationalisation and so
on, it all sounds good. But unfortunately IBM's move here is not
primarily focused on that - otherwise (surely) it would work with TDF -
where it has been made
On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
No one is forcing LibreOffice members to do anything. You are free to
disagree with my goals, my priorities or even my methods and simply say,
No thanks without suggesting that it is immoral for anyone else,
including your own
On 2 June 2011 14:27, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 09:12:10 AM:
From: Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Date: 06/02/2011 09:12 AM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF
On 2 June 2011 14:04, Greg Stein
Hi Jim,
Op 2-6-2011 16:42, Jim Jagielski schreef:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Simon Brouwer wrote:
I had already been so bold as to adding myself to the list, expressing my
support to the proposal. I was wondering though. In the OpenOffice.org project,
many community members contribute in
On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I'd like to think that no one is working on LibreOffice merely because
they have no choice, or that giving everyone a choice is seen as being
antagonistic. If truly 100% of the LibreOffice members prefer TDF to
Apache, then you
Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 10:25:20
AM:
I trust I do not need to explain at length to an Apache PMC the
relative
merits of the Apache 2.0 license or the strengths and stability of the
ASF. I'll take it as granted that this is well-known to you all.
Hello Jim,
2011/6/2 Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com
On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I'd like to think that no one is working on LibreOffice merely because
they have no choice, or that giving everyone a choice is seen as being
antagonistic. If truly 100% of
Guys, if we are going to argue over the mistakes of the pasts
and the slights of the past, quite frankly, we aren't going to
get very far.
This is supposed to be a happy occasion; let's not bicker
and argue about who-killed-who... :)
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:11 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
To answer Jim's email, I think that while OOo and LibreOffice don't have to
be competitors, I would not necessarily want to decide why we should split
development efforts. I 'm sure the Apache Foundation has experience in
dealing with
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote on 06/02/2011 11:06:54 AM:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I'd like to think that no one is working on LibreOffice merely because
they have no choice, or that giving everyone a choice is seen as being
The butler did it.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Guys, if we are going to argue over the mistakes of the pasts
and the slights of the past, quite frankly, we aren't going to
get very far.
This is supposed to be a happy occasion; let's not bicker
and
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I'd like to challenge your assertion here, about splitting the
community, a nonsensical meme I'm hearing repeated in several venues.
Hi Rob - well, are you happier then with perpetuating the split?
As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a
Robert,
Il 02/06/2011 17:11, robert_w...@us.ibm.com ha scritto:
Despite TDF press releases, there was never unanimous support for
LibreOffice among members of the OpenOffice.org community. We're seeing
some of them stand up now and be counted.
As OOo italian native lang maintainer and TDF
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
But I see this as pulling in two directions:
1) On the one hand it is a good fit for a module in an OpenOffice SDK, so
the OpenOffice project might be a good fit. On the other hand ODF is an
application-independent document format, not
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 12:39:12 +0200
Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hello,
I hope you don't mind if I jump in to the discussion.
Great to see you do so! We (ASF) have a decision to make here,
and input from you (ODF and OOO folks) is exactly what we need.
However,
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
opportunity to reunite.
If we all agree on that point, can we please move on?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On 6/2/11 11:40, Davide Dozza wrote:
Robert,
Il 02/06/2011 17:11, robert_w...@us.ibm.com ha scritto:
Despite TDF press releases, there was never unanimous support for
LibreOffice among members of the OpenOffice.org community. We're seeing
some of them stand up now and be counted.
As OOo
Hi,
Le 2 juin 11 à 17:16, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
project has any real development ressources. I see so far one
developer and
Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has
never
contributed
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
Hi,
Le 2 juin 11 à 17:57, Greg Stein a écrit :
Whether one group has more committers than the other doesn't matter
either. There are Apache projects with just a half-dozen people
working on them. That is sufficient for the Foundation, so we can
just ignore number comparisons.
I fully
On 02/06/2011 13:40, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
Hi Ross,
On 2011-06-02 at 12:09 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
Instead I would like to
understand if this technical objective of breaking OOo code into
reusable libraries that the various forks can collaborate on, is part of
the TDF mission.
I am one
On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
opportunity to reunite.
If we all agree on that point, can we please move on?
Seems to me the main issue is
Hello Eric,
2011/6/2 eric b eric.bach...@free.fr
Hi,
Le 2 juin 11 à 17:16, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer
and
Rob, who I know to be a distinguished
On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
...
I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer and
Rob, who I know to be a distinguished
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
opportunity to reunite.
If we all agree on that point, can we please move on?
I wouldn't be too
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:40 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
No one is forcing LibreOffice members to do anything. You are free to
disagree with my goals, my priorities or even my methods and simply say,
No thanks without
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
opportunity to reunite.
If we all agree on that point, can
On 6/1/2011 10:37 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:23 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
Other Works
* You can use the Creative Commons Attribution License
(Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5).
We only accept work under this license that is
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
opportunity to reunite.
If we all agree on
On 6/1/2011 11:07 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 22:52, robert_w...@us.ibm.com 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
On 2 June 2011 17:18, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
As it doesn't fundamentally change the matter - this was a missed
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
??? I simply cannot grok the above as a response to my
comment... huh?
Apologies if I misunderstood. The way I read the exchange was:
this was a missed opportunity to reunite - agree on that point - move on
This seems
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:23, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net 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
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
??? I simply cannot grok the above as a response to my
comment... huh?
Apologies if I misunderstood. The way I read the exchange was:
this was a missed
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:19, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net 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
We are pleased to annouce the inaugural release of Apache Lucy™, version 0.1.0!
Apache Lucy is full-text search engine library written in C and targeted
at dynamic languages. The inaugural release provides Perl bindings.
Lucy is a loose C port of Apache Lucene™, a search engine library
All I'm trying to say is that if we are focusing more on
repeating what a missed opportunity it was, rather than
moving past it and trying to figure out how to take advantage
of the current opportunities that are now open to us, then
we need to adjust priorities a bit
+1
On 6/2/2011 11:45 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
We know the *precise* list of files that we have rights to. They are
explicitly specified in the software grant recorded by the Secretary.
For all other files not listed: we have no special rights. Those files
would be under their original license,
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
All I'm trying to say is that if we are focusing more on
repeating what a missed opportunity it was, rather than
moving past it and trying to figure out how to take advantage
of the current opportunities that are now
I can't speak for the whole project, but personally I'd be interested in
discussing how the POI mission statement could be expanded, and if that'd
work well for everyone.
On the web site we say that the Apache POI Project's mission is to
create and maintain Java APIs for Microsoft Documents,
charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 11:16:45 AM:
I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer
and
Rob, who I know to be a distinguished engineer from IBM but who has
never
Yegor Kozlov yegor.koz...@dinom.ru wrote on 06/02/2011 01:36:52 PM:
I can't speak for the whole project, but personally I'd be interested
in
discussing how the POI mission statement could be expanded, and if
that'd
work well for everyone.
On the web site we say that the Apache POI
Hello Rob,
2011/6/2 robert_w...@us.ibm.com
charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 11:16:45 AM:
I do have a question though. To me it's unclear whether the Openoffice
project has any real development ressources. I see so far one developer
and
Rob, who I know to be a distinguished
First off, as we've seen with other projects that have gone through
Incubation, we have not chosen to avoid areas where others have projects.
Simply put, if there is interest from a community, we seek to be supportive.
If this proposal goes through, and the ASF chooses to incubate OO.o,
everyone
Hello,
as we have a public holiday in Germany, I will reply to the other
messages tomorrow. However, I cannot leave this sentence uncommented:
Noel J. Bergman wrote on 2011-06-02 20.50:
If there is a community split, that
decision will rest solely on those who choose not to join our
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Charles-H. Schulz
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
I am certainly not going to enter a debate on licensing, and I think nobody
wants that here. But I just think that there are other ways to cooperate
than pretending the elephant in the room
Hi Florian
So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo project, a community split is our
(=TDF) fault. However, if the people proposing the Apache incubator project
do not join TDF, a community split is not their fault.
Noel wants surely express OOo is open to everybody and there is no
intention
On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:01 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote on 2011-06-02 20.50:
If there is a community split, that
decision will rest solely on those who choose not to join our all-inclusive
environment.
So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo project, a community split
One simple example: Imagine the Apache project as the core
guts of OOo, the framework. With TDF working on parts
that extend and enhance OOo, in a modular fashion, for
a particular set of end-users... or something like that.
+1
Best,
Jomar
On 6/2/2011 11:07 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 02/06/2011 16:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The initial list has grown and I expect it to continue to; up
until it was announced, no one new about it, so it was kinda
impossible to get a more comprehensive list. Now that people
do know about it, people
Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote on 06/02/2011
03:01:26 PM:
Hello,
as we have a public holiday in Germany, I will reply to the other
messages tomorrow. However, I cannot leave this sentence uncommented:
Noel J. Bergman wrote on 2011-06-02 20.50:
If there is a
charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 02:42:11 PM:
No Rob, I don't question your credentials, have not done that, will
never
done that. Both of us know better than having that kind of talk, both of
us
have worked together for years now, at the OASIS and elsewhere. What I'm
On Jun 2, 2011, at 3:34 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Sense 2 is a but more subjective, since each person might have their own
vision of what the ideal community would look like.
Let's look at it this way: Pretend that when things starting going
south in OOo, but before TDF was formed,
Rob,
2011/6/2 robert_w...@us.ibm.com
charles.h.sch...@gmail.com wrote on 06/02/2011 02:42:11 PM:
No Rob, I don't question your credentials, have not done that, will
never
done that. Both of us know better than having that kind of talk, both of
us
have worked together for years now, at
Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
related communities.
If the differences truly are insurmountable, I'd like to see that
explained in the proposal before we vote on it.
+1 (not binding)
Cheers,
Andreas
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
