openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: Vulnerability fixed in LibreOffice
Date Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:27:25 GMT

On Oct 6, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:

> On 6 October 2011 17:16, Rory O'Farrell <> wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 17:06:36 +0100
>> Ross Gardler <> wrote:
>>> On 6 October 2011 16:53, Rory O'Farrell <> wrote:
>>>> Responsible Apache people need to rethink
>>>> their insistence on their method to the exclusion of all other
>>>> methods.
>>> Please read the comments in this thread by an OOo mentor, Shane
>>> Curcuru.
>>> Please also see the advice and guidance of Dirk, a long time
>>> Apache Member.
>>> I think you'll find what you are looking for.
>> With respect, it is not the tone of my_ emails that need
>> amelioration, but the blanket insistence from some posters that
>> Apache methods must rule always. I have been careful not to
>> attribute personal blame in this thread; I make a general comment
>> on this tendency of absolute insistence on an Apache way, as it
>> seems to me, and as I know from off channel communications, to
>> other newcomers
> I understand where you are coming from. There is a misunderstanding
> about The Apache Way. There are very few things that are fixed in
> stone. However, newcomers often rely on written descriptions of common
> practice and assume that such a description is "the one true way".
> Things like our IP management policies are fixed in stone, but how we
> handle security issues are not.
> By referring to Shane and Dirks emails I was hoping to demonstrate
> that although some people might feel that the security policies are
> fixed, they are not. There are ways that work in other projects, but
> no other project has had to work across two communities in this way. I
> believe this is what prompted Dirk to say, for example, "If this
> community decides it wants to do differently - great. We all may learn
> something!"
> So by suggesting you read those mails again I was not intending to
> criticise your observation but provide you with the argument you need
> to back your very valid point.
> Meanwhile, I see consensus starting to form around the proposal Shane
> has extracted from this thread.

I agree with Shane's proposal as well.

My frustration is that we are not yet in a position to effect such a proposal without control
of the MLs. Has anyone appeared here with any ability to do any administration
of the OOo mailing lists? I don't recall anyone. So, that won't happen until the domain transfer
has been completed AND something is done with Apache Infrastructure to support the MLs.

Yes, the domain ownership is transferred, but domain registration and authoritative DNS servers
have not been changed.

Please see INFRA-3898 [1]

I think that Apache Infrastructure could use many more volunteers.



View raw message