Am 14.10.2011 18:22, schrieb Jim Jagielski:
Whereas it is in the self-interest of those entities
Hmm, I think it's not that easy. We see Team OpenOffice.org (as the
legal entity behind the old Community Council) still in the
repsonsibilty of an uncredible amount of users which gave their
On 10/17/2011 1:58 PM, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
Am 14.10.2011 18:22, schrieb Jim Jagielski:
Whereas it is in the self-interest of those entities
Hmm, I think it's not that easy. We see Team OpenOffice.org (as the
legal entity behind the old Community Council) still in the
repsonsibilty of an
Am 17.10.2011 20:52, schrieb Shane Curcuru:
If it didn't happen on the mailing list, it didn't happen.
I understand your point, but: Do you think you have all relevant
stakeholders here on the list ? Do we have a common understanding who
these stakeholders are ?
Martin
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Martin Hollmichel
martin.hollmic...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 17.10.2011 20:52, schrieb Shane Curcuru:
If it didn't happen on the mailing list, it didn't happen.
I understand your point, but: Do you think you have all relevant
stakeholders here on the list ?
Hi Simon,
2011/10/15 Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com
I just passed on your words here to the conference attendees in the closing
address and the audience responded with spontaneous applause.
Great news!
I've read this release on the Web :
I just passed on your words here to the conference attendees in the closing
address and the audience responded with spontaneous applause.
Regards,
S.
--
Simon Phipps
{Terse? Mobile!}
On Oct 14, 2011 7:28 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
My only wish is that we had someone at the
There are already comments that require response.
Don H? Shane?
Regards,
Dave
On Oct 14, 2011, at 5:07 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
The press@ team has a new blog entry/announce@ about general issues around
the transition from the previous OpenOffice.org project to the new Apache
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
There are already comments that require response.
Don H? Shane?
Links please. There's alot, so I'm interested to see which ones you feel are
priority.
Regards,
Dave
On Oct 14, 2011, at 5:07 AM, Shane Curcuru
On Oct 14, 2011 6:22 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
If LibreOffice, as an entity, or people behind or involved
with LO are guilty of the above, then of course the PR applies
to them. If innocent, then of course it does not.
I'm not sure that response is going to create much
to some at the other end.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 09:58
To: Jim Jagielski
Cc: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; pr...@apache.org Publicity
Subject: Re: Foundation blog posting on Apache OOo
On Oct 14, 2011 6:22 PM
On Oct 14, 2011 7:07 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org
wrote:
My unsolicited advice:
There are several topics in the single announcement from ASF. My
recommendation is to read the paragraph that mentions TDF as independent
of
the other material. From here, it looked like an
On Oct 14, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Oct 14, 2011 6:22 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
If LibreOffice, as an entity, or people behind or involved
with LO are guilty of the above, then of course the PR applies
to them. If innocent, then of course it does not.
On Oct 14, 2011 7:12 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
The intent is address anyone and everyone who is creating the FUD.
Was the Team OpenOffice PR the straw the broke the camel's back?
Pretty much, yeah. Are they the only guilty party? Hardly.
Are we pointing fingers at who are?
On Oct 14, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Oct 14, 2011 7:07 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org
wrote:
My unsolicited advice:
There are several topics in the single announcement from ASF. My
recommendation is to read the paragraph that mentions TDF as independent
On Oct 14, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Oct 14, 2011 7:12 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
The intent is address anyone and everyone who is creating the FUD.
Was the Team OpenOffice PR the straw the broke the camel's back?
Pretty much, yeah. Are they the only guilty
My only wish is that we had someone at the conference who
was supportive of the ASF and the AOOo podling in this
matter who was able to explain this in a positive light…
I've encouraged Charles Schulz of the TDF to reach out to
me, directly, should that not be clear and to emphasize
both the ASF's
On Oct 14, 2011 7:28 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
My only wish is that we had someone at the conference who
was supportive of the ASF and the AOOo podling in this
matter who was able to explain this in a positive light…
Well, Doug Heintzman and I are sitting together here and
On Oct 14, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Oct 14, 2011 7:28 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
My only wish is that we had someone at the conference who
was supportive of the ASF and the AOOo podling in this
matter who was able to explain this in a positive light…
I can't speak for Jim, but I can say that the spirit of best wishes to
the TDF and LibreOffice is honest and sincere from my point of view.
I also believe it's sincere from the point of view of the Apache
OpenOffice podling - there have been multiple offers to try to work
together and
Sorry to interject as Jim's on this, but I wanted to address one thing:
The question that Simon is asking is simple. Some have read the best wishes
to TDF and LibreOffice as being sarcastic and mean spirited. I certainly
didn't read it that way. The issue seems to be that the paragraph
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
snip
The question that Simon is asking is simple. Some have read the best
wishes to TDF and LibreOffice as being sarcastic and mean spirited. I
certainly didn't read it that way. The issue seems to be that the paragraph
21 matches
Mail list logo
