incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: References to "Apache OpenOffice"
Date Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:03:16 GMT

Ross offered to come to the AOOi PPMC to fix it.  I'm not clear what the PPMC has to do with

Specifically, @TheASF is not of AOOi PPMC origin.  The question is, who is expected to do
something about that and how is it to be communicated to them?  Someone else is responsible
for those tweets and their aggregation on the ASF home page.

Also, you refer to a blog post by Rob Weir on his own site.  It is true that Rob Weir is a
member of the AOOi PPMC, but that blog site is not a product of the AOOi PPMC and its aggregation
into Roller is no different than the aggregation of any Apache committer posts that a committer
arranges to include in the feed picked-up by Roller.  (I believe the PPMC did authorize that
"Get it Here" image and link to be used by sites that wanted to promote the availability of
the software.  If there should have been greater formality before doing that, there are places
to raise that specific problem.)

My concern is how to determine what the infractions are that someone can do something about
and also being clear who that someone is expected to be.  The general claim just has us running
around like headless chickens over on ooo-dev.

 - Dennis

PS: I'm now in time-penalty and will check back anon.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Kew [] 
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:38
Subject: Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"

On 23 Jun 2012, at 18:48, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> Nick, the AOOi project does not write those tweets from @TheASF and they are not under
AOOi control.  
> Are these and blog text occurrences the ones that attracted your attention or are there
> If you follow the links to the referenced blog posts you will see that the full term
is used in the blog title.   E.g., <>.

So what appears on doesn't matter?

Nor what appears on, featuring the article that first struck me
as using the name in a way I wouldn't expect when I read it in my feed reader:

> Would it have been sufficient to add it in the title of the individual post, and in the
first mention in the opening paragraph?

I should think so, but that's just me!

> How many times do you require that the qualifier be used to satisfy the requirement for
identifying incubation as the origin of a release, an announcement, etc?

If the guidelines are unclear then maybe they need reviewing?
I was just pointing out usage that seems at odds with my understanding
of the incubator rules.

If a blog gets aggregated, then readers will see what appears in their
aggregator, as I did.  That's without the context of the page title in your link!

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

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

View raw message