Hi Pedro,
On Oct 25, 2011, at 11:42 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> I am not in the PPMC specifically to avoid participating in this type of
> discussions, but I have to say this, just IMHO:
I appreciate your decision to focus on the code. Project management keeps pulling me away
from code ... for too many years.
>
> I fail to understand why the ASF is not considered neutral, deep
> inside I think the reason is simply because this year we got a bigger
> toy in our Christmas tree that they wanted. Hope I am wrong.
Michael Meeks and Florian have been explicit today that openoffice.org as a destination is
not considered neutral by the TDF.
I haven't explicitly asked if an apache.org address is not sufficiently neutral ... I suspect
not.
I think about this as a branding decision by TDF about LO and not our business.
> We owe to our millions of users out there to maintain our own security
> channels and we cannot delegate them to a third party. Looking for
> an unrelated domain to handle our issues is like giving your children
> to your neighbors so they educate them "impartially".
There should be no doubt that ooo-security@i.a.o will remain as the project's security list.
If there is a meta-list for security for all of the peers in the OOo / LO and the rest community.
This is some confederation that shares security issues in a private manner between peers.
The peers have the mutual interest of their communities in mind.
>
> If there is no interest in bringing the code bases together I think there
> Is not much to gain on a shared security list on the long run.
There is a need for co-operation regardless of the code divergence. The code will retain significant
commonality. The ODF format is a standard. There will be common security issues.
One could argue that the such co-operative lists should include all of the Microsoft Office
community as well. Both LO and OOo implement OOXML and the binary MS Office formats. I won't
because I suspect that it is a bridge too far.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Pedro.
|