openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Brown <>
Subject Re: An example of what's wrong up with the wiki
Date Sun, 07 Aug 2011 23:41:22 GMT
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> All: stop talking on this thread.  This juvenile conversation
> needs to end, and we need to get back to making progress on
> both the service migration and the source code repository.
> Re service migration: the people who currently admin the existing
> wiki would be welcome to continue in that role at the ASF.  Anyone
> who has enough common sense to remove stupid crap on the wiki would
> be welcome to help admin one at the ASF.  No it's not fun being called
> out for taking obviously justified action, and that situation won't
> change at the ASF other than the fact that your peers in infra will
> likely support you.
> Re source code repository: apparently noone on the face of the Earth
> has the requisite skillset to migrate the history back to svn.  Fortunately
> that's not a fatal situation as you can simply migrate the tip to svn
> now and migrate everything back to git in a year or so once it's made
> available to incubating projects (or graduate and it'll probably be
> available by that time).
> Let's end this thread and move on to the issues I've mentioned.  Rational
> discussions about the ICLA policy and its impact on releasable artifacts
> can be handled separately.
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Rob Weir<>
>> To:
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2011 6:04 PM
>> Subject: Re: An example of what's wrong up with the wiki
>> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Larry Gusaas<>
>> wrote:
>>>   On 2011/08/07 11:16 AM  Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>   I think we need to do far better than what was just done, when a
>>>>   non-project member, one who just recently announced that they were
>>>>   leaving the project, deleted a contribution from a committer, and then
>>>>   banned the committer from the wiki.  That shows multiple levels of
>>>>   problems, security and procedural.
>>>   The wiki is not part of this project. Apache has no control over that wiki
>>>   yet. It is still under Oracle.
>> If you've been following the list discussions, in another thread, you
>> should know that the wiki is already up, in a VM, on Apache hardware.
>> Switching over to that as the live version will not be long.  It
>> certainly is not too early to discuss how we want it to work at
>> Apache. This should be done with eyes wide open, recognizing what
>> workdc well with the current wiki, but also acknowledging what didn't
>> work so well
>>>   Your being a committer has nothing to do with the current wiki. You are
>> just
>>>   being ingenious to reinforce your anti user community wiki bias.
>> Like most things, this is a question of balance more than of
>> absolutes. The balance for a community-led open source project under a
>> permissive license that allows downstream consumers to customize and
>> release their own commercial derivative applications will likely be
>> different than the ideal balance for a corporate-led open source
>> project under a copyleft license designed to discourage commercial
>> derivatives.    It is important to acknowledge this difference, and
>> then appreciate the what these differences mean for the project..  A
>> key part of being friendly for commercial consumers is that we treat
>> the license questions far more rigorously than the lax approach taken
>> previously.  If this is seen as "anti-community" then we need to do a
>> better job explaining the reasons for this.
>>>   Larry
>>>   --


View raw message