Rob,
Rob Weir wrote on 2011-11-30 21:14:
Patient Meeks: Doctor, it hurts every time I hit myself on the head
with a hammer.
Doctor Phipps: Have you tried using a different hammer?
do you really have time for spreading stuff like this during your paid
dayjob?
Concerned,
Florian
--
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Hello guys;
--- On Tue, 11/29/11, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Michael,
While some might have hoped for another proposal and
discussion prior to action, thank you for going ahead where
there was clearly
Hi Rob,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Hello guys;
--- On Tue, 11/29/11, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Michael,
While some might have hoped for another proposal and
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Christian Lohmaier
cl...@openoffice.org wrote:
Hi Rob,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Hello guys;
--- On Tue, 11/29/11, Dave Fisher
Am 11/29/2011 08:03 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
Thank you and others for the vote of confidence.
Up till now I have been focusing on being a committer to
spend more time on the code, which I think is/was essential
to get the project going.
I think most of the critical things I wanted done there
On 30 Nov 2011, at 12:13, Rob Weir wrote:
and Simon, people who were not
part of this process. To their outside and highly political view,
Hey Rob,
While it's good for the way you characterise me privately to finally be made
crystal clear in public, please note that I have been a
Hi *,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
[...]
Some decorum on the list, please, or remove yourself.
Don't worry - I'll be gone when the mail-forwarder stops working.
ciao
Christian
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 30 Nov 2011, at 12:13, Rob Weir wrote:
and Simon, people who were not
part of this process. To their outside and highly political view,
Hey Rob,
While it's good for the way you characterise me privately to finally
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 07:13 -0500, Rob Weir wrote:
Remember, we had a securityteam mailing list already. LO folks were
subscribed to it.
Sure that list @openoffice.org.
A ~random sub-set of TDF folks are subscribed to it. Requests to have
an administrator for the TDF side to
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 07:13 -0500, Rob Weir wrote:
Remember, we had a securityteam mailing list already. LO folks were
subscribed to it.
Sure that list @openoffice.org.
A ~random sub-set of TDF
Rob,
I'm pretty certain that Michael Meeks is not subscribed to *this* list [;).
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:14
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Neutral / shared security list ...
On Wed
Oops, never mind. I lost track of which list I was reading.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:53
To: 'ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org'
Subject: RE: Neutral / shared security list ...
Rob,
I'm
On 11/29/2011 11:03 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hi Drew;
Thank you and others for the vote of confidence.
Up till now I have been focusing on being a committer to
spend more time on the code, which I think is/was essential
to get the project going.
I think most of the critical things I wanted
So,
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 13:00 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 10:22 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
I think we are getting somewhere. The last detail is which is the real ML
and which is the forwarder. While the AOOo project might prefer to have
Fair point - for
On 29 Nov 2011, at 12:17, Michael Meeks wrote:
I've finally got around to setting up:
officesecur...@lists.freedesktop.org
It is intended as a vendor neutral, neutrally hosted list for reporting
security vulnerabilities.
Thanks, Michael, it's good to see positive action on this.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 29 Nov 2011, at 12:17, Michael Meeks wrote:
I've finally got around to setting up:
officesecur...@lists.freedesktop.org
It is intended as a vendor neutral, neutrally hosted list for reporting
security
Rob,
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 07:37 -0500, Rob Weir wrote:
Just to be clear. No discussion of this new list has taken place on
ooo-dev or ooo-private.
You did read this thread ? it was discussed, inconclusively at length,
and the unhappiness with the status quo articulated quite clearly,
Am 29.11.11 14:31, schrieb Wolf Halton:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.com wrote:
On 29 Nov 2011, at 12:17, Michael Meeks wrote:
I've finally got around to setting up:
officesecur...@lists.freedesktop.org
It is intended as a vendor neutral, neutrally
Hi Michael,
While some might have hoped for another proposal and discussion prior to
action, thank you for going ahead where there was clearly no consensus for
specific action on the AOO side.
On Nov 29, 2011, at 4:17 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
So,
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 13:00 -0700, Dave
Hello guys;
--- On Tue, 11/29/11, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Michael,
While some might have hoped for another proposal and
discussion prior to action, thank you for going ahead where
there was clearly no consensus for specific action on the
AOO side.
As I see it, this
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 08:45 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hello guys;
--- On Tue, 11/29/11, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Michael,
While some might have hoped for another proposal and
discussion prior to action, thank you for going ahead where
there was clearly no
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:21 PM, drew d...@baseanswers.com wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 08:45 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hello guys;
--- On Tue, 11/29/11, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Michael,
While some might have hoped for another proposal and
discussion prior to
Hi Drew;
Thank you and others for the vote of confidence.
Up till now I have been focusing on being a committer to
spend more time on the code, which I think is/was essential
to get the project going.
I think most of the critical things I wanted done there are
done or already on their way and
Hi Andre and all,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Andre Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net wrote:
My gut feeling is, that we should skip this discussion for a while. At almost
all the topics we discusss here we come to a kind of emotional and religious
discussion. So it might be better to take
Hi,
Von: Kazunari Hirano
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Andre Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net
wrote:
For me it is quite hard to identify fields of collaboration, as long as
there is
just one side with substantial contributions. E.g. it is hard to discuss
about
sharing
Hi Andre and all,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Andre Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net wrote:
What is AOOol?
Apache OpenOffice.org (Incubating) ... not sure, if there is a better an maybe
agreed abbreviation for the project here at Apache.
Oh I see. The last letter of AOOoI is i. I
Am 27.10.2011 02:55, schrieb Peter Junge:
strongI totally agree with Florian./strong Please stop this cold
war fought with pointless rhetoric.
+1
On 10/25/2011 11:56 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Hello,
it is really amazing how much hot air can be produced for such a topic.
Folks, it's
Hello,
Dave Fisher wrote on 2011-10-26 01:44:
Let us know ifsecurityteam@oo.o is now preferred. Otherwise you can see my
proposal which I think is essentially yours.
I really would like to go with the neutral and transparent third-party
approach, given the history of this. As said, it
On 26 October 2011 09:25, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org
wrote:
Hello,
Dave Fisher wrote on 2011-10-26 01:44:
Let us know ifsecurityteam@oo.o is now preferred. Otherwise you can see
my proposal which I think is essentially yours.
I really would like to go with the
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
snip
In any case, these subjects are getting off topic for ooo-dev@, so we should
let the AOOo PPMC here figure out how it's going to publicize ways to report
security concerns to it.
In parallel, it might be good
Hi Rob, all
Von: Rob Weir
Gesendet: 26.10.11 17:15 Uhr
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
snip
In any case, these subjects are getting off topic for ooo-dev@, so we should
let the AOOo PPMC here figure out how it's going to publicize ways
strongI totally agree with Florian./strong Please stop this cold
war fought with pointless rhetoric.
On 10/25/2011 11:56 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Hello,
it is really amazing how much hot air can be produced for such a topic.
Folks, it's rather easy. After the recent discussions and the
On 27 Oct 2011, at 02:07, Dave Fisher wrote:
Simon,
Several of the servers in *.services.oo.o will be gone this coming weekend.
The AOOo project is focusing energy on these critical matters.
For example, the wiki and forums are being moved.
On Oct 26, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Simon Phipps
Seems to me that while the focus is political point scoring, aggression,
sarcasm and such the chances of getting cooperation are zero.
On 25 October 2011 00:32, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 25 Oct 2011, at
Hi Dave,
On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 16:25 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
Not sure how much this is like your original proposal, but maybe the
following is acceptable:
(1) The securityt...@openoffice.org continues.
As mentioned, not happy about an openoffice.org domain; LibreOffice is
not
Hi Rob,
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 22:59 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
I just noticed that the LO help website is heavily linked into the OOo wiki.
Thanks for the report :-)
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahelp.libreoffice.org+link%3Awiki.services.openoffice.org
About 732,000
On 25 Oct 2011, at 02:55, Dave Fisher wrote:
I tried to be ambiguous with fork/downstream. There is a relationship, and
whether it originates as a fork, upstream, downstream, or upside-down
relationship the relationship *IS* a *PEER* relationship. (auf Deutsch, ist
klar?)
:-) I just
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote:
Hi Dave,
On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 16:25 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
Not sure how much this is like your original proposal, but maybe the
following is acceptable:
(1) The securityt...@openoffice.org continues.
Am 23.10.2011 04:37, schrieb Rob Weir:
For example, AOOo currently does not have a Pootle
server. Is that an area where TDF this time can help AOOo?
for the records, the old pootle server is lying under my desk, I would
be glad to see that server online again,
Martin
On Oct 25, 2011, at 7:36 AM, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
Am 23.10.2011 04:37, schrieb Rob Weir:
For example, AOOo currently does not have a Pootle
server. Is that an area where TDF this time can help AOOo?
for the records, the old pootle server is lying under my desk, I would be
glad to see
Hi all,
If both parties (ASF, TDF) agree, I could imagine that team openoffice
is willing to provide funds for an independent location, but at the same
time I'm wondering whether such neutral zone is wanted and makes sense ?
What I really don't like to see is a third location for
On Oct 25, 2011, at 2:38 AM, Ian Lynch wrote:
Seems to me that while the focus is political point scoring, aggression,
sarcasm and such the chances of getting cooperation are zero.
+1. We will need to crawl to co-operation before we walk and run.
Regards,
Dave
On 25 October 2011 00:32,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Martin Hollmichel
martin.hollmic...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi all,
If both parties (ASF, TDF) agree, I could imagine that team openoffice is
willing to provide funds for an independent location, but at the same time
I'm wondering whether such neutral zone is
Hi Michael,
On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:47 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
Hi Dave,
On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 16:25 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
Not sure how much this is like your original proposal, but maybe the
following is acceptable:
(1) The securityt...@openoffice.org continues.
As
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:47 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
Hi Dave,
On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 16:25 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
Not sure how much this is like your original proposal, but maybe the
following is
Hello,
it is really amazing how much hot air can be produced for such a topic.
Folks, it's rather easy. After the recent discussions and the history of
this topic, it becomes obvious, that neutral grounds are important.
Neutral grounds mean:
- no domain name related to Apache, OOo, TDF or
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hello,
it is really amazing how much hot air can be produced for such a topic.
Folks, it's rather easy. After the recent discussions and the history of
this topic, it becomes obvious, that neutral
Hi,
Rob Weir wrote on 2011-10-25 18:11:
Sorry, but you build an incredible about of distrust in others if you
express such irrational distrust in AOOo. I'd have extreme hesitation
to work with anyone who exhibs such vehement distrust of an 11 year
old open source foundation that produces 5 of
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hi,
Rob Weir wrote on 2011-10-25 18:11:
Sorry, but you build an incredible about of distrust in others if you
express such irrational distrust in AOOo. I'd have extreme hesitation
to work with anyone
Hi,
Rob Weir wrote on 2011-10-25 18:26:
It is mind boggling that we're having a discussion about an important
topic -- how we handle security vulnerabilities -- and the discussion
is being led based entirely on non-security considerations, without
hardly a mention of users, and instead dwelling
Hi Dave,
First - thanks for being so reasonable :-) it is rather refreshing to
talk details in a pleasant fashion.
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 08:24 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
However, this is moot (does not matter) if the address is not in
a domain that the ASF is responsible.
Fair
Hi,
Rob Weir wrote on 2011-10-25 18:38:
I believe it is a bad pattern to establish for collaboration. We need
to recognize that TDf/LO exists as a project, and AOOo exists as a
project. Once we acknowledge this then it logically follows that
collaboration will occur between these two
Rob,
Some points and a slight criticism about your style which is to put it mildly
an acquired taste.
On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:47 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
Hi
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hi,
Rob Weir wrote on 2011-10-25 18:38:
I believe it is a bad pattern to establish for collaboration. We need
to recognize that TDf/LO exists as a project, and AOOo exists as a
project. Once we
On 25 October 2011 18:01, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hi,
Rob Weir wrote on 2011-10-25 18:38:
I believe it is a bad pattern to establish for collaboration. We need
to recognize that
Hi Michael,
On Oct 25, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
Hi Dave,
First - thanks for being so reasonable :-) it is rather refreshing to
talk details in a pleasant fashion.
You are welcome! I'm looking for common ground and I am trying to listen to
logic.
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 October 2011 18:01, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hi,
Rob Weir wrote on 2011-10-25 18:38:
I believe it is a bad
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 10:22 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
You are welcome! I'm looking for common ground and I am trying to listen to
logic.
:-)
So where does that leave us ? one approach that hasn't been discussed
(and is perhaps a good compromise) - is for me to go ahead and
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.comwrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 10:22 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
You are welcome! I'm looking for common ground and I am trying to listen
to logic.
:-)
So where does that leave us ? one approach that hasn't
I am not in the PPMC specifically to avoid participating in this type of
discussions, but I have to say this, just IMHO:
I fail to understand why the ASF is not considered neutral, deep
inside I think the reason is simply because this year we got a bigger
toy in our Christmas tree that they
Hi Pedro, *,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
I am not in the PPMC specifically to avoid participating in this type of
discussions, but I have to say this, just IMHO:
I fail to understand why the ASF is not considered neutral,
The ASF people is not the
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Christian Lohmaier
cl...@openoffice.org wrote:
Hi Pedro, *,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
I am not in the PPMC specifically to avoid participating in this type of
discussions, but I have to say this, just IMHO:
I fail
Hi Pedro,
On Oct 25, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
I am not in the PPMC specifically to avoid participating in this type of
discussions, but I have to say this, just IMHO:
I appreciate your decision to focus on the code. Project management keeps
pulling me away from code ... for
--- On Tue, 10/25/11, Christian Lohmaier cl...@openoffice.org wrote:
Hi Pedro, *,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org
wrote:
I am not in the PPMC specifically to avoid
participating in this type of
discussions, but I have to say this, just IMHO:
I fail to
to establish its
trustworthiness the old-fashioned way, and it is not by inheritance or even by
association. Not yet.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 09:12
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Neutral / shared
: Neutral / shared security list ...
Hello,
it is really amazing how much hot air can be produced for such a topic.
Folks, it's rather easy. After the recent discussions and the history of
this topic, it becomes obvious, that neutral grounds are important.
Neutral grounds mean:
- no domain name
On Oct 25, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 10:22 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
You are welcome! I'm looking for common ground and I am trying to listen to
logic.
:-)
So where does that leave us ? one approach that hasn't been discussed
(and is
--- On Tue, 10/25/11, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Pedro,
On Oct 25, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
I am not in the PPMC specifically to avoid
participating in this type of
discussions, but I have to say this, just IMHO:
I appreciate your decision to focus
, October 25, 2011 12:30
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Neutral / shared security list ...
Hi Pedro,
On Oct 25, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
I am not in the PPMC specifically to avoid participating in this type of
discussions, but I have to say this, just IMHO:
I appreciate
.)
-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 13:01
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Neutral / shared security list ...
On Oct 25, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 10:22 -0700, Dave
Hello Ian,
Ian Lynch wrote on 2011-10-25 19:18:
Well babies are usually made from love and tenderness (unless it's a
mistake) and I don't see too much of that in this approach. At least to get
started why not do it on a neutral list? Florian has made a perfectly
reasonable case for it. Is that
@incubator.apache.org
Cc: flo...@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [proposal] Neutral / shared security list ...
Hi -
Sorry to reply to myself.
Even though there are choices in this email. Please view it as a proposal.
Where we are seeking lazy consensus.
On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:26 PM, Dave Fisher wrote
, 2011 15:35
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: flo...@documentfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [proposal] Neutral / shared security list ...
Hi -
Sorry to reply to myself.
Even though there are choices in this email. Please view it as a proposal.
Where we are seeking lazy consensus
I will drop off this thread after this post, as it seems that things are
working toward a solution.
I would suggest though that it is rather frustrating to see all of this
ink and blood spilt over what seems to be a misunderstanding.
--continued inline --
On 10/25/2011 3:40 PM, Florian
this to a successful conclusion.
-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 15:45
To: 'ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org'
Cc: 'Dave Fisher'
Subject: RE: [proposal] Neutral / shared security list ...
Dave, if you are going to do that, just
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hi,
Andrew Rist wrote on 2011-10-26 00:34:
I do not understand why this is easier than continuing on the existing
list.
when I asked that last time, I heard various replies:
Oh, Florian, you have
to bringing this to a successful conclusion.
-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 15:45
To: 'ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org'
Cc: 'Dave Fisher'
Subject: RE: [proposal] Neutral / shared security list ...
Dave, if you
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net
wrote:
Agreed. We need to pick a neutral domain name. office-security.org is
this to a successful conclusion.
Yes.
Regards,
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 15:45
To: 'ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org'
Cc: 'Dave Fisher'
Subject: RE: [proposal] Neutral / shared security list ...
Dave
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Neutral / shared security list ...
I will drop off this thread after this post, as it seems that things are
working toward a solution.
I would suggest though that it is rather frustrating to see all of this
ink and blood spilt over what seems to be a misunderstanding.
--continued
@incubator.apache.org'
Cc: 'Dave Fisher'
Subject: RE: [proposal] Neutral / shared security list ...
Dave, if you are going to do that, just relabeling a thread is not helpful.
Please compose a specific concrete proposal under a [DISCUSS], and announce
the duration and end-time for a lazy consensus at the top
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [proposal] Neutral / shared security list ...
On Oct 25, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
Oh, and the most important part:
In want way is the AOOo party to the consensus that is reached? That
ooo-security (an agent of the PPMC, essentially
Hi,
Andrew Rist wrote on 2011-10-26 00:58:
I will drop off this thread after this post, as it seems that things are
working toward a solution.
I indeed hope for a solution soon. Too much time has been wasted
already, rather than working productively, so if we really would move
towards a
@incubator.apache.org'
Cc: 'Dave Fisher'
Subject: RE: [proposal] Neutral / shared security list ...
Dave, if you are going to do that, just relabeling a thread is not helpful.
Please compose a specific concrete proposal under a [DISCUSS], and announce
the duration and end-time for a lazy
to bringing this to a successful conclusion.
-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 15:45
To: 'ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org'
Cc: 'Dave Fisher'
Subject: RE: [proposal] Neutral / shared security list ...
Dave, if you
On Oct 25, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
Hi,
Andrew Rist wrote on 2011-10-26 00:58:
I will drop off this thread after this post, as it seems that things are
working toward a solution.
I indeed hope for a solution soon. Too much time has been wasted already,
rather than
[mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 15:45
To: 'ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org'
Cc: 'Dave Fisher'
Subject: RE: [proposal] Neutral / shared security list ...
Dave, if you are going to do that, just relabeling a thread is not helpful.
Please compose a specific
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
If there is a meta-list for security for all of the peers in the OOo / LO and
the rest community. This is some confederation that shares security issues in
a private manner between peers. The peers have the mutual
On 23 Oct 2011, at 04:37, Rob Weir wrote:
Simon,
I hope TDF members (and members of other related source projects) will
accept our hospitality and join us on the securityteam list.
Your words show you missed the entire point of my proposal, Rob, and leave me
too frustrated to want to
Updating the subject to something that hopefully will attract fewer
trolls. I'm the perennial optimist.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 23 Oct 2011, at 04:37, Rob Weir wrote:
Simon,
I hope TDF members (and members of other related source projects)
On 25 Oct 2011, at 00:56, Rob Weir wrote:
Hi Simon, do you have any other ideas for cooperation, preferably ones
that are not redundant?
While I am amused that your first words after hopefully will attract fewer
trolls themselves include a mean-spirited troll, I'm sorry you think a
Simon,
Please don't despair!
On Oct 24, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 23 Oct 2011, at 04:37, Rob Weir wrote:
Simon,
I hope TDF members (and members of other related source projects) will
accept our hospitality and join us on the securityteam list.
Your words show you
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 25 Oct 2011, at 00:56, Rob Weir wrote:
Hi Simon, do you have any other ideas for cooperation, preferably ones
that are not redundant?
While I am amused that your first words after hopefully will attract fewer
trolls
On Oct 24, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 25 Oct 2011, at 01:25, Dave Fisher wrote:
Simon,
Please don't despair!
:-) Thanks, Dave. Encouragement accepted and appreciated.
I think that Rob is getting ahead of the situation. We need to reach a
simple agreement about
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
-1
The Apache Foundation *IS* neutral.
Beyond the evident open wounds the previous relationship with SUN/Oracle
may have left in the community, the
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
-1
The Apache Foundation *IS* neutral.
Beyond the evident open wounds the
'
Subject: RE: Neutral / shared security list ...
OK Simon, but I am talking about custodial responsibility too, not just the
manner in which list administration and moderation are handled.
I personally have no objection to the governance you propose in your second
and third bullets. I have
Hi Dennis list,
On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 08:11 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
It is not something that can be done unilaterally here on the AOOo podling.
Do you propose that this be discussed at securityteam@ OO.o? It would
seem that is where consensus is required.
Last I checked
-Original Message-
From: Michael Meeks [mailto:michael.me...@suse.com]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 10:07
To: orc...@apache.org
Cc: 'Simon Phipps'; ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; lsecurity
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Neutral / shared security list proposal
Hi Dennis list,
On Fri, 2011-10-21
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote:
Hi Dennis list,
On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 08:11 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
It is not something that can be done unilaterally here on the AOOo podling.
Do you propose that this be discussed at securityteam@ OO.o?
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
