On 06/02/2011 03:40 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Florian Effenberger 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 challeng
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/06/2011 19:22, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Note: I did not read it that way (I think it is quite plausible and
I read it as a bona fide attempt by IBM to shove the project down the
throat of The Apache Foundation.
> I hope we don't need to deliberate fo
Hi Jim,
Am 03.06.2011 21:35, schrieb Jim Jagielski:
Agreed. And that's why I suggested that that would be an
excellent initial part of cooperation between the ASF and
TDF, where they could provide the build/distribution.
Maybe a stupid question, but what should TDF actually build and distrib
On 06/02/2011 04:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Let's be 100% clear here: This is about collaboration. This
is about working together. This is about building a developer
and user community, and not some power-play or ego trip.
Jim, please be aware that OOo end user community is just huge, but onl
On 06/03/2011 07:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
No, they don't. But, to re-quote Sam, they now have the "historic
opportunity to change their license to the Apache License", which makes it
much easier to (quoting you, now), "cooperate with ASF to make the two
projects work as harmoniously as pos
On 3 Jun 2011, at 20:33, Leo Simons wrote:
> Whoah! Please don't call for a vote -- I would much rather we first
> arrive at a situation where I can comfortably vote +1! :)
Strong +1 to that. This is a big decision, and some of us would like
to gauge reaction beyond the confines of this list be
ward whatever the vision
for LibreOffice 4.0 happens to be.
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 12:36
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re:
OpenOffice.org Apache
Hi Rob,
robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote (03-06-11 17:59)
"Allen Pulsifer" wrote on 06/03/2011 11:45:03
AM:
It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that
is licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL. If The Document
Foundation
is willing to change its release from
Sam Ruby wrote (03-06-11 20:22)
Unable is a strong word. I given that we are talking about
historically recent contributions, I would think that it would be
possible to identify and reach out to those who made these
contributions. These people, after all, DO hold the copyrights.
Ah yes, and p
Greg Stein wrote (03-06-11 19:57)
Yeah... that is kind of a disadvantage for when they may choose to
upgrade or modify their licensing.
Read the '+' in the licence ;-)
Cor
(still reading my way through, and understanding in the mean time that
at any moment constructive contribution is expec
Hi All,
On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
>>> the podling.
>>>
>>> These are decisions the podling should be making.
>>
>> Are you ready to call for a vo
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
> I've just finished speaking to Greg Stein, and I'm also newly time-available
> to help. I'd be willing to mentor, and Greg thought I could be of help.
An offer too good to pass up on. I've added you before you change your mind!
> Danese
-
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 09:29:23PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
> I'm also suggesting it's
> /such/ a big deal for the open source community at large that
> openoffice.orgresolve to a working and current site without
> interruption that it deserves
> a mention (preferably a plan - yes, unusual for an
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> 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 wo
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 they have to switch to another license.
Please ignore my mail below, my phone failed to sync completely. I see
apologies were made. That's more like the ASF I know.
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 3 Jun 2011, at 20:34, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
>
>>
>>
> One main, significant difference between TDF and the ASF
> is that the ASF just releases source; TDF fills a *huge*
> and important part of the entire OOo end-user experience.
> I sincerely hope this is an easy to agree to.
This is a concise capture of a critical point.
TDF could decide to igno
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 they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's
> a need to focus *in the proposal*
I've just finished speaking to Greg Stein, and I'm also newly time-available to
help. I'd be willing to mentor, and Greg thought I could be of help.
Danese
On Jun 3, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Re "someone from ComDev"... I'm seriously considering whether to sign up or
> not. I a
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 "someone from ComDev"... I'm seriously considering whether to sign up or
not. I am ready to vote but not sure I'm ready to mentor (it's a time
commitment thing).
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
On 3 Jun 2011, at 19:30, "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
> On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM
Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
>
> If this is how guests are going to be treated here at ASF, then yes, we'll
> take it elsewhere
Fair comment.
Please everyone, thus us the first experience many people are having of the
ASF. We (guests and ASF people) are better than t
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
>> the podling.
>>
>> These are decisions the podling should be making.
>
> Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
Whoah! Please don't call for a vote -- I would much rather
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 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 comes across as a snarky drivers
> seat remark.
Note: I
On Fri, 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.
All come on now. Unless are referring to a the female portion of the
canine fami
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.
On 6/3/2011 1:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> You need to flush your cache...
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 3 Jun 2011, at 19:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> 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...
>>
>
>
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
On 3 June 2011 19:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> 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
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 came about, but the reason I a
>> If this is how guests are going to be treated here at ASF, then yes,
>> we'll take it elsewhere and IBM can go it alone.
> OK... I offer my apologies... I agree that this has gotten quite heated
and gone w offbase.
> I admit my culpability in my actions which have allowed it and apolog
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
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
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 ComDev, if you would serve, please add
> yourselv
t the ASF would be distributing code
>>> under the mark.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message
>>>> From: Jim Jagielski
>>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM
>>>> Subjec
> 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 for showing up.
> This email has no place on this list.
Whoops. Forgot to copy the list.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, 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? :)
>
> No; there are some good discussions going on (as well as
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <
> robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz
>> wrote:
>> > Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
>> >> I wouldn't be too quick to t
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz
> wrote:
> > Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
> >> I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
> > related communit
> Are you ready to call for a vote? :)
I think you need to allow a little time for people to read what has been
written, absorb and reflect on it, and react appropriately. And I'm not
(just) talking about ASF members--I'm talking about the potentially larger
community. Rushing things will not he
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
>>> 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 require a contributor license
>> agreement, so is unable
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. It would
be good to see the rest of that list hashed out and know that those already
on board are good with the individuals signed up (including IBM fo
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Simon Phipps 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 for show
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
> the podling.
>
> These are decisions the podling should be making.
>
They can only make those decisions if they know they have to make them. I
think it's very material to yo
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 ideologically possible). I would
> definitely like to see the
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM, 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
ld be distributing code
> > under the mark.
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message
> >> From: Jim Jagielski
> >> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> >> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM
> >> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM, 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
rom: Sam Ruby
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 2:12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the
Community?
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spell
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
---
>> From: Jim Jagielski
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM
>> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the
> Community?
>>
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Simon Phipps 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 as usual" distributions.
> If we wanted to we could
On 6/3/2011 12:36 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
>>
>> Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
>> other foundation. So we are where we are.
>
> We may be where we are, but we collectively have the opportunity to
> collabo
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> 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
terminates, and the "new"
stuff going on at the ASF would be distributing code
under the mark.
- Original Message
> From: Jim Jagielski
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 1:58:51 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Pr
On 3 June 2011 18:36, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to
> any
> > other foundation. So we are where we are.
>
> We may be where we are, but we collectively have the opportunity to
> collaborate once Oracle has gone - that's what "ope
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.
>>
>>
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
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
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
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 open source
licenses alone and unlike ASF does not require a c
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 now give the IP to any
> other foundation. So we are where we
On 3 June 2011 18:21, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Ian Lynch wrote:
>
> > Noel J. Bergman:
> > > Sam Ruby wrote:
> > > > From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
> > > > one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
> > > > to change their license t
Ian Lynch wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman:
> > Sam Ruby wrote:
> > > From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
> > > one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
> > > to change their license to the Apache License.
> >
> > As I understand it, TDF should
On 3 June 2011 17:16, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
> > From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
> > one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
> > to change their license to the Apache License.
>
> As I understand it, TDF should c
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 now give the IP to any
other foundation. So we are where we are.
Let me speak for my self: I do this as a pure volunt
Sam Ruby wrote:
> From my perspective, I think the license discussion is the essential
> one. TDF is now in the position where it has a historic opportunity
> to change their license to the Apache License.
As I understand it, TDF should certainly be able to "replace" their original
LGPL license
On 6/3/2011 10:20 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
>
> I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here, as others
> can comment
> much better about the impact of the various licenses, and how they play
> together, and what
> ASF could to with the software grant they received, may i
> What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of a
free office suite?
Let me restate that a little bit differently that might answer some other
issues that have been raised.
IBM's interest in the OpenOffice code primarily relates to its proprietary
IBM Lotus Symphony der
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> - What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of
> a free office suite?
>
> It is not clear to what extent the choice of the ASF was driven by Oracle,
> and you probably won't get either Oracle or IBM to talk about
"Allen Pulsifer" wrote on 06/03/2011 11:45:03
AM:
>
> It is my understanding though that IBM wants to work with a project that
is
> licensed under the Apache License, not the LGPL. If The Document
Foundation
> is willing to change its release from the LGPL to the Apache License (or
> possibl
> - What is wrong about the TDF that is better at ASF, for being the home of
a free office suite?
It is not clear to what extent the choice of the ASF was driven by Oracle,
and you probably won't get either Oracle or IBM to talk about that.
However, to the extent that it was driven by Oracle, that
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Florian Effenberger
wrote:
>
> I on purpose leave out the discussion about (re-)licensing here
[snip]
> I hope I replied to all questions asked. If I missed something, this was not
> on purpose, so feel free to ask again, and I will reply to the best of my
> know
Hello everyone,
and thanks for the feedback to my initial mail. I've read many other
messages and blog postings, and would like to focus on just a hand full
of points that I think are crucial. Everything I leave out I do not
leave out because I consider it unimportant in general, but because I
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
-
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Jim Jagielski 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 open to us, the
> 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 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:
>
> "this was a missed opportunity t
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:
"this was a missed opportunity to reunite" - "agree on that point" - "move on"
This seems like a pr
On 2 June 2011 17:18, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> 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
> >>> opportuni
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
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 to reunite.
>>
>> If we all agree on th
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.
>>
>> If we all agree on that point, can we
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Jim Jagielski 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 sugg
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 to reunite.
>
> If we all agree on that point, can we please move on?
I wouldn't be too quick to thr
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.
>
> If we all agree on that point, can we please move on?
>
Seems to me the main issue is the lice
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
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
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
s/my/the projects/
Peace?
-Rob
Jim Jagielski wrote on 06/02/2011 10:52:16 AM:
> 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 simpl
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
Florian Effenberger 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 here, about "splitting the
c
96 matches
Mail list logo