openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Neutral / shared security list ...
Date Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:29:20 GMT
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Martin Hollmichel
<> wrote:
> Hi all,
> If both parties (ASF, TDF) agree, I could imagine that team openoffice is
> willing to provide funds for an independent location, but at the same time
> I'm wondering whether such neutral zone is wanted and makes sense ? What I
> really don't like to see is a third location for gets
> established, that would not be the right sign,

I'm not sure any of this makes sense.  One really needs to suspend
reason to understand this debate.  For example, Michael is arguing
that an Apache-controlled list would not be sufficiently neutral to
have security discussions on, despite the fact that it has been used
for such purposes, by many, including him, for longer than TDF has
been around.  Ironically,  he is making his argument, and we are
having this debate, on an Apache-controlled development list, one in
which Michael is freely posting to and participating in.  This does
not look like a winning argument.

In any case, we have four other TDF/LO members on the securityteam
list, including several members of the TDF leadership (Steering
Committee).  So whatever scruples Michael has do not appear to be
shared by all TDF/LO members.


> Martin
> Am 25.10.2011 13:03, schrieb Simon Phipps:
>> On 25 Oct 2011, at 02:55, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>> I tried to be ambiguous with fork/"downstream". There is a relationship,
>>> and whether it originates as a fork, upstream, downstream, or upside-down
>>> relationship the relationship *IS* a *PEER* relationship. (auf Deutsch, ist
>>> klar?)
>> :-)  I just want to make clear that, listening to both sides of this
>> issue, it is very easy (on both sides) for people to use language that is
>> unintentionally inflammatory and then treat the other party as at fault when
>> they react to it...
>>> So, this could be a true point of co-operation, there was a thread about
>>> this and it did have some good ideas.
>>> Extensions and especially templates are likely to compatible.
>> This isn't a given. By the time AOOo makes an end-user release, there are
>> likely to be substantial differences and a shared  add-ons repo would
>> probably need to distinguish strongly between the two projects. Still worth
>> considering though, I agree.
>>> Given the licensing issues with Apache hosting it does make more sense
>>> for the TDF to host these.
>> TDF won't host closed extensions though, so the combined (TDF + Apache)
>> repo would still hold less than the current repo.
>>> No technical reasons why the DNS for these couldn't point
>>> to servers hosted by the TDF.
>> Maybe this is a compromise solution for the security list too?  make it
>> and point the MX at a TDF server?
>> S.

View raw message