poi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gianugo Rabellino <gian...@apache.org>
Subject Re: List of Patents required to implement OOXML (was: Rejection ofany ENCUMBERED Microsoft Donation to POI)
Date Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:38:56 GMT

On Apr 17, 2008, at 2:42 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
>> doors with references to Apachecon conversation, when it's clear  
>> that he's been the first one to talk to various people around  
>> without mentioning that to us.
>>
>
> No be clear I only im'd sam to say "be patient and will this answer  
> your email" (he is welcome to post it) and Nick to say "I will  
> answer you when I've access to my other email account, I'm behind a  
> firewall".  I WILL answer the intent issue IF you start listening  
> to me and stop being dismissive, but you've convinced me that it is  
> a waste of my time.

Add at least another couple of people you have been talking to (I  
know because they came to me with a "Spoke to Andy. POI, WTF?"), and  
that's a more accurate picture.

> So there is or MAY BE a patent boogyman hiding in the closet and  
> you took his money and may not have asked for the rights to do what  
> you're doing in return.  I'm sorry that you were sloppy or naive  
> and that you don't see it right now, but you were.

This is a very questionable statement. You are entitled to your  
opinion, of course, but the moment you start saying that I have been  
unprofessional (the moment you act on your professional capacity,  
this is what sloppy really means in my book), well, I think you  
should at least provide evidence that goes beyond your opinion, given  
that a number of people here seem to think that's not the case. I  
hope you realize, despite your "email sucks" disclaimer, that words  
have a clear meaning, and that reputation is something I value a lot.  
I'm not going to leave this comment of yours unchallenged.

> I don't blame you for that.  I blame you for just dismissing my  
> concerns out of hand

I think that 52+22 messages (and counting!) are quite far from  
anything like "dismissing out of hand". At a very least, I hope you  
will recognize that I (and others) have been responsive to your  
comments. We just got to a point where it's about opinions, really: a  
lot of people seem to believe (in different shades of grey) we don't  
need anything more that what we've currently got, you happen to  
vehemently disagree. I do believe that, from a community perspective,  
you should just understand what the majority is all about, and the  
possibility that not everyone here might be sloppy in their  
judgement. I do believe that you should revert to a -0.99, and keep  
pushing to have as much clarity as possible. As I said, I see as a  
value having a pain in the backside that double checks what we are  
doing. If you still want to go nuclear, then it's fully your choice,  
but I won't allow you to say that (a) homework hasn't been done - you  
just happen not to like it and (b) that we're not talking to you.

Ciao,

-- 
Gianugo Rabellino
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
Blogging at http://boldlyopen.com/






---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org


Mime
View raw message