incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Neutral / shared security list ...
Date Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:51:15 GMT
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Christian Lohmaier
<cloph@openoffice.org> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hello guys;
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 11/29/11, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>
>>>> While some might have hoped for another proposal and
>>>> discussion prior to action, thank you for going ahead where
>>>> there was clearly no consensus for specific action on the
>>>> AOO side.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I see it, this list is not official. The AOO PPMC has no
>>> influence whatever over it, but that is precisely the type
>>> of "neutrality" the involved actors wanted.
>>>
>>
>> Remember, we had a securityteam mailing list already.  LO folks were
>> subscribed to it.  We (the AOO security team) have been working
>> closely with them on reported security issues.  This included analysis
>> and sharing of patches. (Yes, Apache and LO members shared patches).
>> So among the people actually involved in the security reporting and
>> resolution process, we had a system that worked.
>
> You-are-kidding-me.
>
> The whole thing was stirred up because you (Apache-OOo) claimed you
> would not know anything about the vulnerabilities that were fixed in
> LO.
> Starting with this:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201110.mbox/%3Cae2e5b53-710b-4ed4-81b7-f5c386281837@zimbra60-e10.priv.proxad.net%3E
>
> and lots and lots of messages that did follow.
>
> So it was not working since there was apparently lack of communication
> on ApacheOOoI's end.
>

And that was fixed quite some time ago, by subscribing ooo-security to
the securityteam list.  The collaboration between AOO and LO security
experts that I was speaking about has taken place since that, even
since that initial thread.  So it was working, except in the minds of
those who refused to give it a try.

>> But this did not seem to please Michael and Simon, people who were not
>> part of this process.  To their outside and highly political view, it
>> was not neutral enough.  So they unilaterally pushed through another
>> list.
>
> You're making a dick of yourself.

Some decorum on the list, please, or remove yourself.

> The security-list topic has been discussed at length spanning multiple
> weeks. Stop acting so surprised about it and especially don't deny
> that the discussion took place. This is ridiculous.
>

No one is acting surprised or claim that there was not a discussion.

> That being said: Yes, apache-camp did disagree about the definition of
> "neutral" - TDF/LO's view is: A list carrying the trademark of one of
> the products is not neutral. No matter how nice its management is
> done. The email-address where people should report issues carries a
> clear stamp, and is therefore not neutral.
>
>> The status quo was working and no counter proposal had consensus.
>
> No - it was not working, and the same way you do argument, Michael can
> argument with "lazy consensus" that is quoted so conveniently.
>

Michael is not a committer on this project.  He cannot claim lazy consensus.

>> Maybe some disagree and were unhappy that their personal preferences
>> did not get universal acclamation, but *how* we decide these questions
>> is as important as *what* we decide.    This was a very poor example
>> of decision making.  In fact I would not call it community decision
>> making at all.  It was just Michael acting alone.
>
> That is your personal crusade against Michael Meeks/SuSE. Keep that
> stuff out of it. Seriously. You're really making a kindergarten out of
> it.
>

I sorry you think that way.   I really care a lot about unbiased
neutral views like yours.

-Rob

> ciao
> Christian

Mime
View raw message