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
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
If libreoffice encourages, but not requires, AL2
for stuff in the core package, that would be a huge
advance to get a bit nearer both camps.
Given licenses are the expression of the ethos of a community, it's
disingenuous
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 25 October 2011 11:28, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
If libreoffice encourages, but not requires, AL2
for stuff in the core package, that would be a huge
advance to get a bit nearer both camps.
Given
Hi Simon;
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Ethos is
something that goes well beyond a license, and once you
read the iCLA its not an imposible thing to ask ( you
signed it), and its surely not what SUN had in place.
That said, and its something I have argued about
publicly with
Hi Dennis, *,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
I read somewhere, and I don't know where, that ASF did not want torrents to
be used.
I'm guessing that the issue is related to ensuring the integrity and
authenticity of
packaged releases.
That
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
If libreoffice encourages, but not requires, AL2
for stuff in the core package, that would be a huge
advance to get a bit nearer both camps.
Given
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
snip
The problem is that the ASF do not want to host and provide services of
special software for single projects. I can understand this as even the ASF
infra is a team of volunteers and their time is limited as it is
The issue with bittorrent is that it has become nearly illegal in
some countries. I heard about someone being visited by the
police in Italy.
I do think it is an option but alternate means must be provided.
Pedro.
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
The issue with bittorrent is that it has become nearly illegal
in some countries. I heard about someone being visited by the
police in Italy.
I do think it is an option but alternate means must be provided.
On
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Christian Lohmaier
cl...@openoffice.org wrote:
Hi Dennis, *,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
I read somewhere, and I don't know where, that ASF did not want torrents to
be used.
I'm guessing that the issue
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
I read somewhere, and I don't know where, that ASF did not want torrents to
be used.
The meaning and force of this statement is hard to judge without a full context
Apache has surprisingly and confusingly
Il 25/10/2011 14.04, Pedro Giffuni ha scritto:
The issue with bittorrent is that it has become nearly illegal in
some countries. I heard about someone being visited by the
police in Italy.
There is always somebody visited by our Polizia Postale. ;-)
Indeed, the software is legal, of course.
Hi Robert, *,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Christian Lohmaier
cl...@openoffice.org wrote:
[...]
That doesn't make sense - integrity is assured by bittorrent by
providing sha1sums for each chunk.
On the wiki here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Email+Migration+Post
Feel free to make changes directly on the wiki, or suggest them as
responses to this note. I don't think we want to overburden the
reader with a recitation of migration facts, but instead motivate them
Thank you Pedro for the very well thought out and politely presented
explanation of your point. It's very helpful to have this kind of
honest and detailed discussion, especially when tempers run high, and
doubly so when there's such a clear (and unfortunate) distrust between
AOOo community
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.
Something we talked about a while ago, but never did. An FAQ on how
to submit a patch to the project. Obviously, we have many project
members who have figured this out. But there may be others who now or
in the future would benefit from a simple write up.
I was thinking of taking as a base,
Hi all,
My name is Bert Frees. I'm the developer of odt2braille, the Braille
plugin for OOo: http://odt2braille.sourceforge.net/index.html. Some time
ago I raised an issue on the old developer list (see e-mail below), but
I got no reaction. I'm bringing it up again on this list in the hope
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
snip
In the three to four weeks that it will take to get to step (7) AOOo and
Apache Infra should have control over the openoffice.org MX records. An
easier alternative would be to decide what MX services we want to
--- On Tue, 10/25/11, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
Something we talked about a while
ago, but never did. An FAQ on how
to submit a patch to the project. Obviously, we have
many project
members who have figured this out. But there may be
others who now or
in the future would
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
hi, i think it might be better to usee the uno api for the printing services.
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/API/Samples/Java/Office/DocumentHandling#DocumentPrinter
On 10/25/11, Bert Frees bertfr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
My name is Bert Frees. I'm the developer of odt2braille,
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
Am 10/25/2011 04:31 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
--- On Tue, 10/25/11, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote:
Something we talked about a while
ago, but never did. An FAQ on how
to submit a patch to the project. Obviously, we have
many project
members who have figured this out. But there may
Excellent stuff, and definitely needed.
On 10/25/2011 10:44 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
Am 10/25/2011 04:31 PM, schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
--- On Tue, 10/25/11, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote:
...snip...
2) Do we have a strong preference for whether patches are
submitted to
the ooo-dev list or
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 Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Christian Lohmaier
cl...@openoffice.org wrote:
Hi Robert, *,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Christian Lohmaier
cl...@openoffice.org wrote:
[...]
That doesn't make
is migrate the many legacy - is migrating the many legacy
on to Apache servers - onto Apache servers
Aside from that, it looks good to me, though I wonder if the opening
paragraph sounds a little Nigerian.
Don
Am 10/25/2011 02:02 PM, schrieb Robert Burrell Donkin:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
snip
The problem is that the ASF do not want to host and provide services of
special software for single projects. I can understand this as even the ASF
infra is a
Hi Alexandro,
Thanks for your suggestion.
Something I didn't mention yet is that I need an interface that can send
raw data (a byte stream) to a printer driver. The problem with braille
printers is that they're very different from normal ink printers. A
braille printer is more like an old
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
There is an easy way to avoid all the trust issues with regards to
shared mailing lists. Don't have such a list. Trust individuals.
This proposal takes this approach.
1) The AOOo PMC solicits the names of security contacts from related
projects who wish to be consulted related to pre-disclosure
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 Armin,
Armin Le Grand schrieb:
[..]
I checked all changes again and added the patch to #118485#. Now I'm
looking for someone volunteering to add the patch, build AOOo and play
around with OLEs a little bit, reading the patch will also help in this
case, it's not too big to do so.
I did
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
Rob,
I'd like to actually try to work out the shared list situation with a sincere
spirit of mutual understanding, listening and co-operation.
On Oct 25, 2011, at 9:08 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
There is an easy way to avoid all the trust issues with regards to
shared mailing lists. Don't have
I wonder if this is too technically detailed.
Since the recipient is a ML user that impact should be noted near the top.
The information about what the ASF / podling process is all about should be at
the end.
Information here to go to find out about AOOo release plans would be helpful. A
wiki
I'm at a dinner so my apoligies for the top-post, but really, I'm trying to
help Pedro (and now it seems you) see things from /outside/ the Apache
worldview and understand why the mistrust is brewing. I can recidte the
Apache mantra too, it's just no-one here needs to hear it any more :-)
--
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 1:45 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
I wonder if this is too technically detailed.
Since the recipient is a ML user that impact should be noted near the top.
The information about what the ASF / podling process is all about should be
at the end.
The
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
Am 10/25/2011 07:58 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Dave Fisherdave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
I wonder if this is too technically detailed.
Since the recipient is a ML user that impact should be noted near the top.
The information about what the ASF / podling process is
Pedro ++
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Please note that we are doing both simultaneously to
avoid breaking the build.
We do have to update the task list. There are some
uncommitted advances (libegg, ucpp) and some WIP
(nss), but there are still
Hi Rob,
On Oct 25, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
snip
In the three to four weeks that it will take to get to step (7) AOOo and
Apache Infra should have control over the openoffice.org MX records. An
easier
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 10/25/2011 07:58 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Dave Fisherdave2w...@comcast.net
wrote:
I wonder if this is too technically detailed.
Since the recipient is a ML user that impact should be
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
Hi Robert, *,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Christian Lohmaier
cl...@openoffice.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct
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 10/25/2011 09:08 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
There is an easy way to avoid all the trust issues with regards to
shared mailing lists. Don't have such a list. Trust individuals.
This proposal takes this approach.
Actually I personally like this idea. Why? There have been many
--- 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
Rob,
It is an interesting social observation that distrust is not exemplary of being
trustworthy. (Distrust is a kind of permission to be righteously untrustworthy,
as is too easily demonstrated in world affairs as well as closer to home in
regard to specific events already discussed on this
Having some lists on Sourceforge makes it clear to me that you don't want to go
there. My sourceforge e-mail address, the one associated with the lists,
receives an incredible number of bounces of false e-mails allegedly from the
list as well as crap sent to the list. It is difficult to avoid
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
+1
I am very much in support of the view that Dave has evolved in this discussion.
The discussion is not about the private security teams each project must have
to deal with its security issues and to ensure the secure operation of the
dealing with security issues.
If there is to be a
+1
Good eye!
[For me, the first problem is to get it all written down. Then the problem is
to figure out how to make it the most useful to the reader, ideally by having
the biggest questions answered first. For everything but the first part (and
sometimes that too), it is useful to have
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On the wiki here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Email+Migration+Post
Feel free to make changes directly on the wiki, or suggest them as
responses to this note. I don't think we want to overburden the
Umm, head-slap moment.
I happen to be the proud owner of worthiness.org.
Truly.
It is not hosted, but I have been sitting on the domain name for several years.
It was part of my M.Sc in IT project on Open Systems Trustworthiness. I won't
go into that here. There is a reasonable capsule
A quick summary of where we are, in case you haven't been following
the previous threads.
Information on the top 100 legacy mailing lists is on the wiki [1].
A draft note that will be sent to these lists is an another page [2].
If you note in that first page, the Migration Owner column is blank.
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
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
A quick summary of where we are, in case you haven't been following
the previous threads.
Information on the top 100 legacy mailing lists is on the wiki
On 10/25/2011 2:43 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote:
A quick summary of where we are, in case you haven't been following
the previous threads.
Information on the
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.
Give it at least 3 full 24-hour calendar days.
I don't have any sense that there
Dennis,
I've gone as far as I want with this for now. I'll see what people say on this
existing thread.
I have no desire to fight a formality battle with Rob and his other,
non-co-operative [proposal]. I put enough time today into diplomacy.
Regards,
Dave
On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Dennis
Hi there,
can someone in the know of framework/API stuff review i104788?
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=104788
The issue is 2 years old, and the fix is rather simple.
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
pgp9kZqQHiSQY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
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
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) will participate in the
described community arrangement if established? Something else?
I think that would be essential to bringing this to a
Hi there,
can someone in the know of framework/gtk stuff please review patches attached
to https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118519 and
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118520
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
pgpuGZjVreNys.pgp
Description: PGP
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
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org 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) will participate in the
described community arrangement
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
A quick summary of where we are, in case you haven't been following
the previous
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
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) will participate in the
described community arrangement if established? Something
Andrew, I think part of the confusion is from the discussion leading up to the
creation of ooo-security and some related discussion about why securityteam@
was not enough at that time.
Without getting into the he-said,she-said part of it, that seems to be the
origin. There was more when the
On Oct 25, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org 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) will
+1
along with, as Rob mentioned, whatever legal and security@ apache.org review
is needed from ASF for us to conduct the securityteam@ OO.o list that way, if
that is the case. I am thinking this is not so difficult. Having
ooo-security@ representatives at a different location is probably
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
It seems to me that sharing fixes is not nearly as crucial as sharing
identification of vulnerabilities and a little hobnobbing on how the
vulnerability will be made known when it exists in more than one project's
releases. There might not be coordinated patching and releasing. It all
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
On Oct 25, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
Oh, and the most important part:
In want way is the AOOo party to the consensus that is
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
On Oct 25, 2011, at 4:43 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
On Oct 25, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
Oh, and the most important part:
In
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote:
On 10/25/2011 2:43 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org wrote:
A quick summary of where we are, in
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
