Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <006801cdcc2b$2d90b250$88b216f0$@acm.org>
References: 
 <CALcesKDGePVFRsTemnEdZ=nwUT5AkYD0cLLom2ud53BU7xT3Lg@mail.gmail.com>
	<50B32469.7030803@gmail.com>
	<CALcesKA7nhB098iSsoeBaCkNE7-0mD+QV6_X-uq+MX_He5h47w@mail.gmail.com>
	<00bc01cdcc02$290b26d0$7b217470$@apache.org>
	<CAP-ksoijH2_KMvNoSTDZBfu11bvgDBSmS-sQAkj6c98pAxAyFw@mail.gmail.com>
	<003d01cdcc1e$fa096fa0$ee1c4ee0$@acm.org>
	<CAP-ksogx++LQ5UypTVEjsdkAu+BEfZhfO+qTLeQPZoEjn7oxow@mail.gmail.com>
	<005801cdcc29$56236ca0$026a45e0$@apache.org>
	<006801cdcc2b$2d90b250$88b216f0$@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:28:59 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAP-ksoiZ4jxZVM5-G0neqSa6LYySRzzGzE9QTZeyOWx9onwWLw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> I think I've expressed my concerns.  I have nothing to add.
>
> One follow-up question though:
>
> Previously you had offered to see if it was possible to get a permission =
letter from IBM to ASF allowing the project to adjust headers and notices t=
o have them be under ALv2.
>
> Is that not going to happen?
>

The headers are red herring.  Remind yourself of how long it took to
remove the Oracle copyright and the LGPL headers from /trunk.  The SGA
was submitted in June (or was it May?) 2011.  But we didn't get code
checked in until 2011-08-29, right?  And the license header updates
were done over a longer period of time, not completed until
2012-04-30.   Did this prevent anyone from working with the code
before 2012-04-30?  Of course not.  Did anyone raise any concerns?
No.  In fact we did almost the *entire AOO 3.4.0 work* in that time
period.  The headers had to be updated before we could release the
code.  But it did not prevent anyone from working with the code before
the release.

-Rob

>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orcmid@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 14:57
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: RE: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
>
> I don't think the web site situation is an equivalent.  I also don't thin=
k the choice of base for integration of Symphony features is relevant.
>
> I am concerned about the Symphony tree being in the public SVN and being =
an attractive nuisance.  If it is not going to be morphed into something th=
at can be worked with and integrated by the community of contributors, I re=
commend that it be gone.
>
> (Of course, I can remove it from any working copy that I possess, and I s=
hall do that in switching to the new repository location.)
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 14:25
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
>
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
>>   "Remember, we wrote it."
>>   Well, I suppose the notion of "work for hire" might provide some nuanc=
e to "we".
>>
>
> And the CCLA covers that side of it.
>
>>   I gather this means that IBM-associated contributors will make ALv2-co=
vered contributions directly to the SVN and/or via patches and that is the =
provenance there is.  That should safeguard the interests of the ASF.
>>
>>   So what is the point of there being a Symphony portion of the SVN tree=
?
>>
>
> Go back to the discussion on this list when we initially checked it
> in.  We had a long discussion about what to do with that code, with
> the two main options being: 1) Make /symphony be the new trunk and
> merge the delta from AOO 3.4 into Symphony, or 2) Keep the current AOO
> trunk and merge selected features from Symphony into the AOO trunk.
> The decision ultimately was to do 2), what we refer to as the "slow
> merge".  Since we took that direction the /symphony tree has not
> undergone development.  Its main value (in retrospect) was to support
> that decision making process.  Of course, if we had decided to take
> the other approach then /symphony would become the new trunk and the
> usual clean up activities would have occurred on the way to releasing
> that trunk.
>
> Remember, IP Cleanup is not just about changing the headers.  It is a
> longer process, culminating in a vote to accept the code base.  Once a
> code base is accepted, we should be releasing it and doing the other
> kinds of maintenance functions -- security patches, etc. -- that a
> responsible PMC does for its releases.  But I see zero volunteers
> stepping forward to maintain a second office suite in this project.
> So it makes no sense to me to spend time on a tree that we're never
> going to release.
>
>>   I now agree with a comment that you made in a previous discussion abou=
t this.  I think it should be removed if it is never going to be IP-scrubbe=
d.
>>
>
> We have another direction in Subversion that is also odd.  It has an
> eclectic set of licenses on its files.  In some cases it includes
> files where we cannot clearly identify the license.  Instead of
> hypotheticals we have actual examples of real 3rd parties wanting to
> reuse the files, but we're not always able to clearly point them to
> the license terms.  We don't even have an SGA for these files.  So
> should we delete this directory as well?  Of course, I speak of our
> website in /ooo-site.  IMHO, it is not a problem so long as we don't
> include it in a release.
>
> -Rob
>
>>  - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:41
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orcmid@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org> =
wrote:
>>> Is this to be based on the Symphony code?
>>>
>>
>> Dennis,  we have Symphony code within IBM.  Remember, we wrote it.
>> Whatever code we check in is covered by signed ICLA's and CCLA's.
>> That should address all reasonable concerns with regards to the
>> provenance of the code.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>>  - Dennis
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Steve Yin [mailto:steve.yin.aoo@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 01:07
>>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: IAccessible2 integration for AOO 4.0
>>>
>>> Thanks for both of your suggestions. The time table will be provided la=
ter.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:12 PM, J=C3=BCrgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@gmail=
.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/26/12 6:59 AM, Steve Yin wrote:
>>>> > Hi,
>>>> >
>>>> > I propose to integrate IAccessible2 as an accessibility feature for =
AOO
>>>> > 4.0. A wiki for the effort estimation can be found here:
>>>> >
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+IAccessib=
le2
>>>> > Here is my question. Should I create a feature in AOO Bugzilla and a
>>>> branch
>>>> > for development?
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Hi Steve,
>>>>
>>>> this is good news. I would suggest that you give some details what do
>>>> you expect to implement when. The integration of IAccessible2 is a
>>>> bigger task and I don't see it all integrated in the next 4 month or s=
o.
>>>> Creating a new feature task in bugzilla would be the normal procedure
>>>> and a new branch is a must from my perspective for this huge piece of =
work.
>>>>
>>>> Good to see progress on this important integration.
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Steve Yin
>>>
>>
>