incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
Date Sun, 05 Jun 2011 17:01:38 GMT
----- Original Message ----

> From: Ralph Goers <>
> To:
> Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 12:46:31 PM
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
> On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> I posted a similar  statement yesterday. Personally, I think  the traffic
> >> on this list has settled  down a lot in the last 24  hours and is now 
> >> focusing in on topics more relevant  to this  list. But maybe that is just
> >> because it was Saturday :-)
> > 
> > Most of the sniping^H^H^H^Hdiscussion has moved over to the  libreoffice
> > lists at this point.
> > 
> >> What I  am  still waiting to hear on are:
> >> 1. The amount of code in the project  that  the grant didn't give to us
> >> under the Apache  License.
> > 
> > Not a blocker for starting incubation.  IOW we  don't ask for this level of
> > detail from other podlings.
> It might  be a blocker for my vote.  You are, of course, free to vote  
> This is a much larger project than usually enters the  incubator. 

I'm thinking this project is on the order of scale that Harmony was.
If I'm off by a factor of at least 10 that might be worthwhile to know.

> I'm worried that if the project has too much of this kind of  work to
> deal with it will kill the community.
> > 
> >> 2. The  amount of work  that will be required to rework dependencies.
> > 
> > Not a blocker for starting incubation. Keep in mind that the podling  may
> > elect to "release" via the libreoffice infrastructure, which gives  them
> > the same flexibility wrt licensing issues that we gave to  subversion
> > (which to this point has yet to cut a formal ASF  release).
> Same as my point above.  But your point is well taken that  there may
> be other ways to achieve the end goal.  If leveraging LibreOffice  was
> going to be the way of doing releases initially then I might expect to
> see  the proposal updated to indicate that there is agreement with that
> community to  do that.  In the end, to me this is just making sure the
> community doesn't  have so many roadblocks that failure is very likely.

My attitude is that OOo is coming to the ASF.  Right now we have a grant, the
trademark paperwork will be sorted out, and a developer community is "forming".
Until we have a podling in place, nothing else in the ASF is really equipped
to make timely decisions about OOo.  There are lots of unknowns for the ASF
in dealing with OOo, but again we don't have any mechanism for dealing with
them until there's a podling to coordinate from.  If in 6 months time the 
podling decides to disband, or the IPMC disbands it by force, so be it.

Personally I have no idea how my daily workload will be affected by dealing
with OOo's infra requirements.  If it just means dishing out dedicated resources
and setting up end-user services, that shouldn't present any issues.  OTOH
staffing a forum with support service isn't something I'm equipped to deal with.
Either way, I don't intend to block incubation over it- collectively infra
will learn to "cope" with the change.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message