Re: Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are we now?)

That's correct... I had hoped that my follow-up had made that clear. On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > FWIW, IMO it's Sam's call as he is the sponsor. Jim > is just trying to avoid a situation where people who > aren't signed up for the project start placing conditions > on it.

Re: Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are we now?)

On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:02 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> >> On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:17 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:06 AM, wrote: >>> >>>>> I would r

Re: Put myself on the initial committers list

On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:57 AM, Christoph Jopp wrote: > Dear All, > > I put myself on the initial committers list because I want to help the > Apache OpenOffice Project in some way I can. > Welcome! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: gen

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: > I wish the Apache org was more useful to me than just providing my HTTP > server. > It is official: Keith is a troll. Do not feed. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr.

Re: OpenOffice & LibreOffice

On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: > > The first step to abandoning the Apache license is for others to > recognize like you have that it is not a "free/libre" license. I don't > know why people bother to put the Apache text at the top of every > file, when someone else can just as

Re: Initial source files (was: OpenOffice: were are we now?)

On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:17 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:06 AM, wrote: > >>> I would recommend altering the proposal. "We have the set of files >>> specified in the software grant. During incubation, we will seek a >>> grant to the following groups of code: " >> >> >> Done.

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > >> I had thought you were further away... > > That's the impression I had from an early post here as well... > Please see: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/msg01027.html -

Re: Consideration of OpenOffice.org as a podling

On Jun 4, 2011, at 7:18 PM, Nick Kew wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 11:18:16 -0700 > Ralph Goers wrote: > >> I've just managed to wade through some 400+ emails to this list in the last >> 2 days and I would estimate that less than 10 were particularly relevant to >> what my vote will ultimately

Re: OO/LO License

That is true. There is also the possibility that there are a set, possibly large, of knowledgeable developers who only want their work non-copyleft. And another set that really couldn't care one way or another. That's simply the nature of FOSS licenses. I develop and release code under all types o

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

On Jun 4, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > I would be very wary of this sort of assertion, regardless of the person who > made it, Jim. TDF does have quite an interesting story on this but we > naively felt that discussions that were clearly off the record were to be > kept, well, o

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People > have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to scrap > that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance they > don't ev

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

On Jun 3, 2011, at 9:07 PM, 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 Ap

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's > recommendation, than taxes. > I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle as to prevent any sort o

Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...

On Jun 4, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Cor Nouws wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Jim Jagielski wrote (04-06-11 12:33) >> On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: >>> >>> Hmm, got that wrong I see now >>> http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-pr

Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO

n't have a developer interest as well. As long as they still do, then licensing is important. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] j...@jagunet.com [|] h

Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...

quot;help". It implies cooperation with others who also help repair it. -- ======= Jim Jagielski [|] j...@jagunet.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~ John Adams -

Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...

On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:52:48AM +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: > > Hmm, got that wrong I see now > http://www.networkworld.com/community/apache-president-jim-jagielski-talks-openoffice-org > > Which is no problem for me, but obviously I misunderstood your > statement about not ta

Recuse as mentor?

ed to be fun and at least *somewhat* fulfilling... -- === Jim Jagielski [|] j...@jagunet.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war"

Re: Discussion with TDF/LO people (was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)

s simply due to time restraints; As for the latter, I've never heard back. -- ======= Jim Jagielski [|] j...@jagunet.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~ John Adams -

Re: Discussion with TDF/LO people (was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO)

ing forwarded > across the lists). > I've been reminded quite a bit lately that the OOo community is much more than "just" OOo and LOo/TDF; I want to make sure that we are also reaching out to everyone. -- =======

Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...

me know and I'd be happy to explain... -- =========== Jim Jagielski [|] j...@jagunet.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~ John Adams ---

Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

a plan - yes, unusual for an incubator proposal) too. > Agreed... after all, we have some people around here that are involved in the open source community and have some understanding of what's important there :-P Cheers! -- =======

OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...

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 division as well as almost forcing the "other side" to take a defensive stance. It's a shame.

Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> >> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> >>> I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of >> telling TDF

Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of > telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's > a need to focus *in the proposal* on exactly how to sustain the consumer > deliverable from

Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > >> And I offer a personal apology to Simon... > > Accepted - apologies if my strong reaction to the unexpected news at the > start of the week on offended you. Accepted as well.

Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Ian Lynch wrote: > > Which is exactly why I say "we are where we are" and we should deal with it > even if it is to agree to disagree on some things. Can we work together and > resolve issues so that people can enjoy using FOSS office software? That is > really the fu

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

And I offer a personal apology to Simon... On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Allen Pulsifer wrote: > >>> I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim. >>> Yes, I am concerned about how this all c

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Allen Pulsifer wrote: >> I suggest you stick to the content of the e-mails on the list, Jim. >> Yes, I am concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am >> here on the list is to be constructive and not to be bitch-slapped and >> misrepresented just fo

Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this > collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treating > ideological division as a given... > Well, the ASF develops and releases software under the AL... th

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:30 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> Are you ready to call for a vote? :) > > I'm certainly not support OOo from 2 committers and 1 mentor. ... > Shane & Sam, and some member of ComDe

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

m concerned about how this all came about, but the reason I am here on the > list is to be constructive and not to be bitch-slapped and misrepresented > just for showing up. > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> Cmon Joe, Simon's PoV has been

Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy

On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > If I were voting on this incubator proposal (and of course I know I am not), > I would want to know that the people proposing it had a grasp of the > enormity of the task and a plan for dealing with it /from day one/ and not > from an undefined

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled >> out his position. As I read it, we could license >> the OpenOffice trademark to the Document Foundation >> for, as Simon put it, "business

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

Simon put it, "business as usual" distributions. > If we wanted to we could specify a time/date/event > upon which that license terminates, and the "new" > stuff going on at the ASF would be distributing code > under the mark. > > > > - Original Message -

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > 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. >> >>

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote: > >> Hi Florian, >> >> >>> I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up >>> at Apache or any other entity. >>> >> >> Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > and especially to use the trademark (which is the only actual asset being > transferred) for everyone's good. > And as a tangible, valuable asset, the ASF cannot, as a 501(c)3 non-profit just "give it away" to just anyone... in general, the re

Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy

On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 03/06/2011 16:43, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>> >>> Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very similar >>> sugges

Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy

On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > > Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very similar > suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these two threads > together. > Simon's email, from what I can tell, boils down to: 1. The podling g

Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy

On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 03/06/2011 16:00, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >>> Stupid question time: If TDF already has the *build* infrastructure, >>> then isn't *that* a clear choice of where at least some level of >>> cooperation can occur. >>> >>> After all, the ASF p

Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy

Of course it does... but we are discussing ways where we can use all aspects of the existing communities to give the IPMC a warm-and-fuzzy regarding voting +1 On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > Um, it seems to me that this discussion of builds and distribution > belongs on the

Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy

On Jun 3, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 21:26 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: >> Finally, I think we're exaggerating the difficulty of getting out a >> release of OpenOfice. LibreOffice did it very quickly. And so did IBM >> with Symphony.

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines... numerically ...

On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:13 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > 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. > Agreed.

Re: Proposal for OpenOffice Incubator strategy

On Jun 2, 2011, at 8:12 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > TL;DR version: I think I see people talking past each other for a bunch of > reasons, and I have a compromise proposal that might make things easier. It's > at the bottom, and explained in some detail in the middle. > Welcome to the discussion

Re: OpenOffice Apache Incubator Proposal and uniting "The Community"

oned post. -- ======= Jim Jagielski [|] j...@jagunet.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~ John Adams - To unsubscribe, e-mai

Re: Volunteering for the Apache OpenOffice podling?

proposal under "committers?" Or "other?" > > Under the list of proposed committers, yes. -- ======= Jim Jagielski [|] j...@jagunet.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Great is

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

On Jun 2, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > That's a tough one, Jim :-) It's what I do :) > > my personal feeling (I'm not speaking > on behalf of TDF on this one) is that we didn't have enough time/opportunity > to understand each other more. And now, we are looking at a hairball

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

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

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Jim Jagielski 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: > &g

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:13 PM, Simos Xenitellis wrote: > And till now, I see no efforts to build a new community. > I see no inspiration either to get people to contribute to Apache OpenOffice. > You do realize that all this is about 24hrs old right? You might as well look at a newborn and say "ti

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jim Jagielski 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

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:04 PM, Ian Lynch wrote: > On 2 June 2011 16:49, Jim Jagielski 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.

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

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: g

Re: Blondie's Parallel Lines...

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 wi

Happy happy joy joy

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: > J

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:11 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: > s/my/the projects/ > > Peace? > Of course... just making sure it's all understood... ;) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For addi

Blondie's Parallel Lines...

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

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?

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 you

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

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 c

Re: OpenOffice and the ASF

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

Re: [italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

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

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

gt;> >> We believe in the processes, systems, and framework Apache has put in place. >> >> >> Documentation >> >> >> C <http://documentation.OpenOffice.org.org/>urrently available on >> openoffice.org <http://openoffice.org&g

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

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 b

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

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

[italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF]

More info re TDF and LOo - Forwarded message from Italo Vignoli - Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 23:16:53 +0200 From: Italo Vignoli Reply-To: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org To: Jim Jagielski CC: Louis Suarez-Potts , Sam Ruby Subject: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF On 6/1/11 8:35

Re: Rép : OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

On Jun 1, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > 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 t

Fwd: OpenOffice and the ASF

FYI: Begin forwarded message: > From: Louis Suarez-Potts > Date: June 1, 2011 2:58:02 PM EDT > To: Jim Jagielski > Cc: Louis Suarez-Potts , Italo Vignoli > , Sam Ruby > Subject: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF > message-id: > > For me, yes, share. And I quite ag

Fwd: OpenOffice and the ASF

Begin forwarded message: > From: Jim Jagielski > Date: June 1, 2011 2:33:15 PM EDT > To: Louis Suarez-Potts > Cc: Italo Vignoli , Sam Ruby > > Subject: Re: OpenOffice and the ASF > message-id: > > > On Jun 1, 2011, at 2:18 PM, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: &

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

On Jun 1, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > For sure, we need to add people. I expect that we will get > quite a bunch interested. After all, this was all kept > hush-hush. Now that the cat is out of the bag, we will for > sure see that list grow. > FWIW, I have co

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

On Jun 1, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 01/06/2011 17:28, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> On Jun 1, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: >> >>> >>> There is a statement that "Oracle will assist in the transition and >>> migra

Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal

On Jun 1, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > > There is a statement that "Oracle will assist in the transition and migration > from OpenOffice.org.", I am probably reading too much into it, but why is > there not a statement that Oracle intend to continue development once the > transiti

Re: [Vote]: Libcloud to become a TLP

+1 (binding) On May 15, 2011, at 10:42 PM, Tomaz Muraus wrote: > OK, sorry for the confusion, but apparently I need to open a separate voting > thread so here it is. > > Here is also a list of people who have already voted +1 in the proposal > thread which can be found at > http://mail-archives.

Re: [VOTE] release deltacloud 0.3.0 (RC3)

+1 On Apr 19, 2011, at 5:01 PM, David Lutterkort wrote: > Hi all, > > I just uploaded the third release candidate for Deltacloud 0.3.0. The rc is > available from http://people.apache.org/~lutter/deltacloud/0.3.0/rc3/ > This RC fixes a critical bug in the EC2 driver. > > Please vote on the rele

Re: [VOTE] release deltacloud 0.2.0

On Feb 21, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> I'm not really fit with ruby projects, but there are quite a few sources >> with LGPL license headers. e.g. >> ./lib/deltacloud/drivers/opennebula/opennebula_driver.rb > >> is this o

Re: [VOTE] release deltacloud 0.2.0

We're looking for one more binding +1... On Feb 14, 2011, at 1:20 PM, David Lutterkort wrote: > Hi all, > > I just uploaded a release candidate for Deltacloud 0.2.0. The rc is > available from http://people.apache.org/~lutter/deltacloud/0.2.0/rc2/ > > Please vote on whether this should become t

Re: [VOTE] release deltacloud 0.2.0

+1 (binding) On Feb 14, 2011, at 1:20 PM, David Lutterkort wrote: > Hi all, > > I just uploaded a release candidate for Deltacloud 0.2.0. The rc is > available from http://people.apache.org/~lutter/deltacloud/0.2.0/rc2/ > > Please vote on whether this should become the official 0.2.0 release by

Re: [VOTE] Accept Lucene.Net for incubation

+1 (binding) On Jan 27, 2011, at 1:05 AM, Troy Howard wrote: > All, > > Since posting the Lucene.Net Incubator proposal announcement on Jan > 12th, we now have three mentors signed up and would like to call a > vote to accept Lucene.Net into the Apache Incubator. > > The proposal is included bel

Re: [VOTE][PROPOSAL] EasyAnt incubator

+1 (binding) On Jan 25, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote: > +1 > > Greetings, Marcel > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.

Re: [VOTE] Accept Wave into the incubator

+1 (binding) On Nov 30, 2010, at 1:52 AM, Dan Peterson wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Please vote on the acceptance of Wave into the Apache incubator. > > The proposal is available at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WaveProposal > (for your convenience, a snapshot is also copied below) > > The ea

Re: [ISIS] Re: Conference call

gt; the secret conspiracies of the trilateral commission, which works >> tirelessly to subvert Apache communities. >> >> If it makes anyone feel any better, I plan, as a mentor, to _avoid_ >> the Skype calls, and so to maintain a perspective comparable to that >> o

Re: [ISIS] Re: Conference call

By definition, ANY such meeting will exclude some people; it's just the nature of the beast. Anyone not in that timezone either will not be able to attend or will need to go out of their way to attend. As such, it is *very* easy to disenfranchise large groups of people, esp if the Skype chat is see

Re: Real-time communication (was [VOTE] ALOIS to enter the incubator)

I still don't see how that gets around the perception, and the reality, that development is being done outside the list. So I don't see that proposal as helping out at all... On Sep 16, 2010, at 3:27 PM, Scott Deboy wrote: > I understand the concern raised by the use of real-time communication f

Re: [VOTE] Kitty to Enter the Incubator

+1 (binding) On Sep 15, 2010, at 3:20 AM, msacks wrote: > At the advisement of the list, we have created a brand-new thread here > for voting on the kitty proposal. > The wiki page is located at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/KittyProposal > > Thanks. > >

Looking for a few more votes... Re: [PROPOSAL] Kitty to Enter the Incubator

oposal. > > Initial Source > http://github.com/msacks/kitty > > External Dependencies > > Jython 2.5.1 > > Documentation > > - README (Documentation) http://github.com/msacks/kitty/blob/master/README > - How Kitty was Born > http://www.tomcatexpert

Re: [PROPOSAL] Kitty to Enter the Incubator

On Sep 8, 2010, at 1:22 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 20:29, Matthew Sacks wrote: >> ... > >> *Mailing Lists* >> >> kitty-dev >> kitty-commits >> kitty-user >> > > Is there a large user community already? If not, then splitting the > community across dev/user does not make se

Re: [VOTE] Isis to enter the incubator

+1: binding On Sep 1, 2010, at 5:42 AM, Dan Haywood wrote: > The Isis proposal has now been updated with a champion and several new > mentors (thanks again guys), and is ready to be voted on. > > The proposal is at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IsisProposal , the text > is also copied belo

Re: [VOTE] Thrift 0.4.0 RC1

+1 On Aug 20, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 16:51, Bryan Duxbury wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> In all the time it took for us to finally release Thrift 0.3, we've >> accumulated enough changes for Thrift 0.4! >> >> I propose we accept >> http://people.apache.o

Re: [VOTE] Approve the M2 release of Apache Stonehenge

+1 On Jul 5, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Ben Dewey wrote: > Hi, > > The Apache Stonehenge community has voted for the M2 release of Apache > Stonehenge. We are now asking the approval from the Incubator PMC to publish > the release. > > Stonehenge is a set of example applications for Service Oriented A

Re: [PROPOSAL] Zeta Components

+1 ! On Apr 19, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Tobias Schlitt wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi all, > > please find below our proposal for Zeta Components. The proposal is also > available in the wiki: > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ZetaComponentsProposal > > Reg

Re: [VOTE] Termination of WSRP4J podling

+1 On Apr 19, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: >> I'm not all to familiar with what the next steps should be. > > Update the status page, move the project on the projects index (probably > retired is correct, rather than dormant) to reflect the change. > >> I assume the wsrp4j mailing l

Re: [VOTE] Apache Traffic Server as a TLP

+1 On Apr 10, 2010, at 5:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 4/9/2010 6:54 PM, Bryan Call wrote: >> >> Incubation status: >> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/trafficserver.html >> >> Please cast your vote: >> [X] +1 to recommend Traffic Server's graduation > > --

Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of apache-trafficserver-incubating-2.0.0-alpha

On Mar 10, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote: > > Please vote on releasing this package as Apache > trafficserver-incubating-2.0.0-alpha: > > [ ] +1 Publish > [ ] 0 Abstain > [ ] -1 Don't publish, because... > > +1 for release ---

Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of apache-trafficserver-incubating-2.0.0-alpha

+1 On Mar 5, 2010, at 2:21 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote: > Hi, > > The Traffic Server PPMC has voted on and approved the release of TS > v2.0.0-alpha. We would now like to request the approval from the Incubator > PMC for this release. The original vote thread is > >Message-ID: <4b8d5deb.2050.

Re: [VOTE] - Graduate Log4PHP as a subproject of Logging project

+1 On Mar 4, 2010, at 4:18 AM, Gav... wrote: > Hi All, > > The Log4PHP community has voted [1] with 5 +1 votes and no other votes as > follows, to graduate to become a sub-project of the Logging Project. > > * Gavin McDonald > * Christian Hammers > * Jim Jagielski

Re: [VOTE] Subversion podling for graduation

Looks like the trademark issues are being resolved, so +1 ! On Feb 11, 2010, at 11:08 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > Hello all, > > I started a discussion thread a week-ish ago to seek out issues for > Subversion's graduation. The couple bits that were raised[1] have been > handled, I believe. So wi

Re: Incubator Releases: mandatory or optional? Purpose?

On Nov 13, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Greg Stein wrote: > >>> IIRC, Martijn has offered a proper legal review in the place of a > "release". >>> This sounded pretty reasonable to me. I would agree to that. > >> Yup. I've already stated that I have no problems with running RAT an

Re: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion

On Nov 11, 2009, at 5:35 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Dan, > > "It's up to each project to get their releases correct" - Yes. But not > everyone hangs out on the d...@maven or gene...@incubator. Hence the request > to broadcast. > > I really don't understand the "why?" - No one is trying to

Re: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion

On Nov 4, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Greg Stein wrote: The Subversion project would like to join the Apache Software Foundation to remove the overhead of having to run its own corporation. The Subversion project is already run quite like an Apache project, and already counts a number of ASF Members am

Re: [VOTE] Accept Libcloud proposal for incubation

On Oct 28, 2009, at 2:39 PM, Paul Querna wrote: Libcloud proposal thread went well, and we added several mentors. I would like to start the vote to incubate Libcloud into the ASF. The proposal is included below and is also at: Please cast y

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >