openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ e-mail addresses
Date Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:58:40 GMT
<orcmid response="in-line" />

-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Rosen []
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:48
To:; 'OOo-dev Apache Incubator '
Cc: 'Dave Fisher'; 'Rob Weir'; 'Lawrence Rosen'
Subject: RE: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ e-mail addresses

Dennis Hamilton wrote:
> There are problems concerning migration of
>,, and
>  Consequently, all
? addresses will be shut down when the
> migration goes into its final stages sometime in November.

Is going away or itself being renamed in November? I must have 
missed that announcement....

  No,, the domain name, is being preserved,
  along with migration of the site's static content and the
  interactive bugzilla, wiki, and forums services.

  There are other services of the web site that are not
  being preserved.  This includes mailing lists that
  are operated (with addresses such as users@
  and an e-mail forwarding and identification service
  using addresses like myname@ (not
  entirely unlike orcmid@ and orcmid as an ID).

  Some services running at the original http:// *.OO.o
  web locations rely on the myname and myname@ OO.o as
  part of an identity system.  It is also the case that
  myname@ OO.o is a kind of widely-available vanity
  email address that is forwarded by the service @ OO.o.
  These addresses have been used, of course, as also a way
  to receive mail, with the myname@ OO.o forwarded to a
  "real" receiving address specified by the holder of
  myname@ OO.o.

>  1. The presumption is that these addresses (and sometimes the
> services) cannot be preserved in the migration of the
> http://* properties from Oracle custody to
> Apache custody, even though the domain name can be preserved.

I don't understand that presumption. Custody of a website has nothing to do 
with the addresses within it or accessing it.

  The problem is not with custody but with services operated
  at that address once the domain and the hosting is in
  Apache custody.  The presumption is that there will be no
  migration of the software nor the data that supports the e-mail
  forwarding and the user's ability to control the destination of
  the e-mail forwarding.  So, when the hosting is done by
  Apache, it is expected that this service and its data will
  be lost.

  Note, this is not so much about the addresses of the site,
  but how name@ OO.o is forwarded when it is not
  actually the address of part of the site (or, in the case
  of mailing lists, even when it is).

>  2. There is an untested presumption that it is not legal to
> transfer those forwarding accounts because of rules about
> privacy and European trans-national data-sharing regulations.

If you can articulate this concern more clearly, I'll forward it to European 
attorneys who can advise us.

  The holder of a myname@ has a password for
  managing this little account.  In addition, the email
  address to which myname @OO.o is forwarded is kept in
  the account record.  Other information and parameters
  are either public or not personal.
     If the e-mail address to which forwarding occurs is
  considered private data, there is a concern that having
  the list be moved into Apache custody might constitute
  an infraction of some privacy policy or even regulatory
  policies concerning the handling and sharing of private
     The current location of storage of the list and
  operation of the forwarding service may be material
  factors in this case.

> There is speculation that the disruption of e-mail is tolerable
> and that most of the current accounts have been abandoned.
> That view seems to ignore the importance of these identifiers
> as part of the provenance structure for contributions to the
> open-source project and the integrity of the code base and
> related artifacts.

I cannot personally judge the technical obstacles you identify, but my gut 
tells me that we shouldn't disrupt the existing flow of Open Office activities 
simply because ownership has transferred to Apache. Nor will it be reasonable 
to ask our Infra team to manage 100K+ additional email accounts.

Can you advise us what the minimum that has to be done in order to let Open 
Office continue in non-crisis mode about this?

  There are two minima that I see.

  One is to allow the forwarding system to cease operation
  and let the breakdowns be whatever they are.

  The other is to arrange for the forwarding service to be
  migrated along with the site and operated as part of the
  re-hosted site still under the domain.
  This will require cooperation between Oracle and Apache
  Infrastructure.  Depending on the software involved, it
  will involve the PPMC providing technical administration
  for the maintenance of the service.

  If the forwarding is migrated, there would be no provision
  for adding new users.  Current users would be responsible
  for maintaining their own forwarding and, when desirable,
  retiring their use of the myname @OO.o at their
  convenience when there is no concern for someone attempting
  to send mail to it or use it as the basis for some sort of

  This is independent from the concern about shut-down of
  mailing lists whose names are, similarly, listname @oO.o.
  Mailing lists and their archives are operated in an entirely
  different way and that is a separate problem, despite
  certain functional similarities.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton []
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:00 AM
> To: OOo-dev Apache Incubator
> Cc: 'Dave Fisher'; 'Rob Weir'; 'Lawrence Rosen'
> Subject: [ISSUE] Shut-down of all name@ e-mail addresses
> There are problems concerning migration of yourname@,
> listname@
>, and servicename@  Consequently, all
> yourname@
> addresses will be shut down when the migration goes into
> its
> final stages sometime in November.
> I don't have a solution.  I have an appraisal of the issue.  It is
> something
> that requires mutual understanding and, out of our mutual attention,
> the
> prospect of a workable solution.

View raw message