Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
References: <CAAfFNYEBbXaTj5-qVy7V8Uj7uA3wCyo6O0fsHG7ESpmTG4qO3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <003501d1dbb7$b23daea0$16b90be0$@acm.org>
 <011501d203a4$73f52050$5bdf60f0$@acm.org>
 <85730f01-5ae8-270a-e9b4-0f362da9405d@gmail.com>
 <004c01d203d9$4772ad10$d6580730$@acm.org>
 <CAA4ffp_eF3VdZV6mvNNfaKfdMT0KLDq1+3KYJqvJKjHqbmW+Ww@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Dr. Michael Stehmann" <anwalt@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>
Message-ID: <57C7B6CC.6070207@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 07:04:12 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Icedove/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAA4ffp_eF3VdZV6mvNNfaKfdMT0KLDq1+3KYJqvJKjHqbmW+Ww@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="P4Shda7Cr0sHGcOpXETgulUh3XpEfK7aI"
archived-at: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 05:04:40 -0000

--P4Shda7Cr0sHGcOpXETgulUh3XpEfK7aI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Am 01.09.2016 um 00:59 schrieb Simon Phipps:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
> dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
>=20
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: toki [mailto:toki.kantoor@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:30
>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Independent Entity to Develop and Further AOO
>>>
>>> On 31/08/2016 16:26, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>> I think that is the case because downstream producers, who get the sup=
port
>> business, contribute to their upstream framework or source-code distri=
butor.
>>
>> What indication is there that any of that is working for Apache
>> OpenOffice?  Maybe if we stopped shipping binaries?  How would that wo=
rk
>> for the individuals who seem to dominate our download consumption?
>=20
>=20
> Since the "downstream" producers seem better equipped to deliver signed=
 and
> vulnerability-corrected binaries to non-specialist consumers on a timel=
y
> schedule, maybe delegating downloads to them would be a good option for=
 the
> project?

Stopping shipping binaries would cause some negative effect for our
project, so it might be an option, but not best one.

Binaries made by our community are essential for our QA.

Without them we stand "with empty hands" in the public with negative
effects for our brand and image.

Supporting our users by community members would break down.

So the impact for the improvement of our commity would be tremendous, if
we "delegate" this tasks to a third party.

Kind regards
Michael


--P4Shda7Cr0sHGcOpXETgulUh3XpEfK7aI
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlfHttEACgkQB4PwVyFoz0cQTwCcCFXBYxe4lQyRB/w5zmPE89NB
1lcAn0Tt2QFsw7AOc8NLCw570mCrCvlF
=M163
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--P4Shda7Cr0sHGcOpXETgulUh3XpEfK7aI--