Hi, /me wonders how this discussion got relocated to the users list....it's not a users list discussion; it's a contest discussion. I would appreciate relocating back on the constest_information list at least in part to reduce the noise on users@ and also to track threads.
On 2006-08-26, at 16:38 , G. Roderick Singleton wrote:
On Sat, 2006-08-26 at 22:28 +0200, Stefan Taxhet wrote:Hi, G. Roderick Singleton wrote:On Sat, 2006-08-26 at 00:20 +0200, Stefan Taxhet wrote:G. Roderick Singleton wrote:I know you are busy but Louis reports that you want this contest to use the JCA unlike other previous contests. Sure would be nice if you wouldexplain your rational to the list.done. I think you are a bit fast with resigning from the coordination. I would be happy to see the contest going to happen...I think 24 hours is sufficiently long to wait for an explanation.From my automatic reply you will have gathered that I'm traveling. So I would have appreciated a bit more patience.And where was Louis. Between the two of you, you have changed the parameters of the contest. No discussion, no explanation.
? Changing the parameters? I don't think so. The point of my message was rather in the spirit of clarifying the content of the guidelines. I was under the impression, as it happens, that you wanted us to comment on the content.
These are just excuses and do not hold water. You and Louis should be happy you have gotten rid off someone who thinks that what you are trying to do, STINKS.
I disagree Gerry, and I am rather surprised that you seem to want to argue that contributions to OOo that are meant to be included in the installation sets should deviate from our contributing guidelines.
Thiswas not forthcoming either from you or Louis. I therefore conclude that the JCA is important to you and Sun. I cannot accept that. I have mademy position clear from the moment you were quoted by Louis.The quote didn't make clear that I agree not to ask for a JCA up front.But don't you that that asking winners for a JCA is an acceptable compromise along the lines of the OpenOffice.org project guidelines?You and Louis had ample opportunity to explain. And I disagree about theneed for the JCA for documentation.
Actually, I was travelling too but explain what? That OOo requires the JCA for code submissions and for other material to be included in the installation sets? My point was that as that is a desired outcome, asking upfront for the JCA to be signed is logistically easier, unless you want to create a set of templates that parallel the ones included in the installation sets. That's certainly feasible (it already exists) but it's also a little clumsy.
Regards, louis
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
