Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jim@jagunet.com designates
 209.133.192.6 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Subject: Re: "opportunity to reunite the related communities" Re:
 OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting the Community?
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik2zxCzdji8G1+8t=NMkgv_WDMxCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:56:12 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5F59A167-3072-432F-A1DF-A7943A4B9A33@jaguNET.com>
References: <20110602000137.GA60771@devsys.jaguNET.com>
 <4DE6D6E9.8080609@apache.org> <4DE76850.2060905@documentfoundation.org>
 <OFE3F371B9.569FF3A7-ON852578A3.004F1A01-852578A3.0050A3FE@lotus.com>
 <20110602153555.GI31776@thinkpad.thebehrens.net>
 <7F8A10C4-DBAD-41EC-A824-821D13C40F2B@jaguNET.com>
 <BANLkTikCpBXROaTqE7XOG3yKEuJpHYMz7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4DE7EAF1.1050205@ping.de>
 <BANLkTinWO4k1nsGr-M-bsJzKBOjmG+5-Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTimsT8udiJ7CnwHTYGdAKkYhpLxiOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <EDA39F10-F197-4962-AE37-F46EBB38BBF9@apache.org>
 <D88EAEA5-780F-463A-8EFD-B5083CE3D4F4@webmink.com>
 <5AD54080-1FCC-42A3-B869-295A9FC6F858@jaguNET.com>
 <BANLkTik2zxCzdji8G1+8t=NMkgv_WDMxCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org


On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>=20
>>> 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 Day One.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>=20
> Didn't I suggest that first?  :-)

I took your "business as usual" meaning that TDF simply
continued doing their dev/build/release. My point, and
maybe you meant it as well, is that they also take on
the build/release of OOo on our behalf.

>=20
> I think it is for you and I, yes, but the proposal itself isn't there =
yet.
> There's still no section discussing how the project will handle its
> inherited end-user binary commitments or the consumer brand, =
especially on
> Day One.  I suggest this needs addressing if ASF is to be able to
> confidently +1 it.
>=20

Not strictly replying to the above point, but no proposal is
expected to have every possible contingency planned... That
is so the podling has the flexibility to determine what needs
to be done. TrafficServer, for example, noted the TM issue but
the proposal didn't (iirc) determine *what* to do; subversion
and spamassissin also had to worry about continuation of code
and releases, but again, the proposal didn't define a specific
course of action. The intent is to start a podling so *it* can
work those issues, handle pre-existing commitments, etc...=

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org