incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
Subject Re: [proposal] Neutral / shared security list ...
Date Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:41:53 GMT


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 wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Shane Curcuru <asf@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 for the TDF/LO members to take a week or
>> so, and have a discussion on their own mailing list about how they
>> could better collaborate with AOOo.  
>> 
>> 
>> Gents, that's all worthy talk, but the subject at hand is how best to have the legacy
StarOffice meta-community co-ordinate on security issues in a way complementary to the projects'
own security mechanisms given the loss of trust resulting from an earlier discussion around
AOOo stewardship of the existing mailing list. 
>> 
>> Dave pieced together a workable solution, using input from a variety of people, and
has been leaving the subject open for about 24 hours for discussion seeking further constructive
input. There has been nothing new that I've seen, and I hope he will now post a [Vote] thread
for what he sees as the most likely consensus conclusion.
> 
> I never intended a [VOTE] thread. I was going to seek Lazy Consensus.  Next will be a
[DISCUSS] / [PROPOSAL] thread, but it won't be before next week. When that does happen it
will include this proposal. There are other strong opinions in the project. These need to
be carefully included as options.
> 
> We have gained clarity on issues from the LO perspective. This includes how to properly
address our peers.
> 
> So, please wait while the time critical *.service.oo.o issues are addressed. If any issues
are reported we all know where the current security lists exist.

No problem, I just heard the issue being "superceded by process" - it can certainly wait until
next week in my view.

S.
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message