Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of dennis.hamilton@acm.org
 designates 75.98.160.130 as permitted sender)
Reply-To: <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
To: <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
References: 
 <b629500c-045c-4018-90ba-d40924bc4121@zimbra60-e10.priv.proxad.net>
	<ae2e5b53-710b-4ed4-81b7-f5c386281837@zimbra60-e10.priv.proxad.net>
	<CAP-ksojgkugz=GdbYZ4JJQDaWPvyrKROddMbunQFeWJgU1+oiw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1318241437.13022.82.camel@lenovo-w500>
	<CAP-ksoje4yxsEFnZZm+Vor-d1q3AhiMU4s0MGQ5OjkdK1n41JQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57CD0AF1-D116-4AAD-8F27-5537FCDBC82B@webmink.com>
	<CAP-ksojE5DcaFMjBzsi+V+HkYziBDxuWbsOTd247yH9=bzf5Sw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA4ffp-MbDVuFZxwXQwPWbsnxZ+FV+0govh+-OTrXyV8VKzZGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-ksohuUzrGBUHD_WoP9HAfL-1NWhKNn_N1ymvBKtDtXf8Rkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA4ffp_oYB6eWQtVRN3jWS1TfhCovUD_28WSPm764YC+5NV4kg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-ksoiCMJ+u3cbpKXcG6MNzCv3FWGQb=mut0Aw=rj3hh4BybQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<509B98B1-2E85-4D87-BD68-8020C592C9F0@webmink.com>
 <CAHZP38ASRZDxO_4vC74_L3Xew5KOWhsPzO4UvsrhWRFeVuCrWQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHZP38ASRZDxO_4vC74_L3Xew5KOWhsPzO4UvsrhWRFeVuCrWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Vulnerability fixed in LibreOffice
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:12:14 -0700
Organization: NuovoDoc
Message-ID: <009301cc875e$fec12c50$fc4384f0$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: 
 AQJoCrnrfld+i/1N7jdorlCYq48qYwJZG8dSAi45FBsCQlLQrQG85WGUApTJ6SwC4eLEtwLGz4aeAhjLhgkB6bH+BAEQqLXrAqKhtX4BewjggJNu//bw
Content-Language: en-us

Concerning the continued use of securityteam@openoffice.org, there are =
two
issues

 1. It is not clear what the fate of mailing lists @openoffice.org is
going to be, and whether they are reliably-operated in the meantime.  It =

would be great to have assistance in preserving the administration of=20
those lists, the @openoffice.org e-mail registration/User-ID structure,
etc., but at the moment no capability to doing so has been identified=20
by the Apache OOo project.

 2. There is some indication that those who are able to administer that
list have not been very ecumenical about it, and some sort of peace =
treaty
is required to achieve the necessary DMZ.  That probably applies =
wherever
the shared security forum is established, and it is probably more =
essential
to address that than (1).

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: J=C3=BCrgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@googlemail.com]=20
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 07:55
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Vulnerability fixed in LibreOffice

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com> wrote:

[ ... ]
> Back to the actual issue:
>
> * for (A), AOOo clearly needs a private security list. We all agree.
> * for (B), the legacy StarOffice ecosystem clearly needs a shared =
private
> security list. Seems we all agree on that too.
>
> The former apparently exists. All that's left is to actually agree to =
a
> technical arrangement that works for the latter. There are two =
proposals on
> the table. Given the tendency of some to confuse community =
collaboration
> with Apache project work, I actually think the idea of a list at
> freedesktop.org for (B) makes most sense.
>

let us check first if we can still use the already established list
securityteam@openoffice.org <knownsecurityteam@openoffice.org> before
seeking for a new name. It's at least not clear for me if we can use it =
or
not, i will try to clarify this.

freedesktop.org is very Linux centric, isn't it? But the whole word is =
often
talking about OpenOffice independent of what brand they currently use. =
And
most of our users are still on a windows system (if we like it or not =
;-)).
That means i would prefer to move forward if possible with a shared list
securityteam@openoffice.org <knownsecurityteam@openoffice.org> that is
already known, is related to the product or derivatives and that we can =
use
for collaborative work on any security issues and the communication =
between
projects sharing the same code base or at least part of it.

Does it make sense to check first the possibility of using the existing
name?

Juergen


[ ... ]