You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> on 2012/01/25 10:27:41 UTC
Sourceforge and extensions download site
As some of you will know the board meeting got pushed back 6 days. It
was, however, held last night and I was able to attend. Consequently I
am pleased to confirm that we now have a go-ahead with respect to the
Sourceforge offer to host the extensions site. However, there is one
important restriction on what we can do, so I'll cover that first.
There cannot be any advertising on a domain name owned by the ASF,
this includes openoffice.org.
The board felt the most appropriate action would be to have users
directed to *.openoffice,org or *.apache.org where they will be
greeted by a page listing appropriate extensions sites with a
disclaimer. At a later date this would become the meta-data server. I
figured this would not be a problem as it is one of the options we
discussed.
We did discuss whether this would break behaviour for older OOo
releases. If this is the case then it would be acceptable to provide a
redirect for appropriate URLs. This may need to be removed for at
graduation time, we didn't go into details about this as I felt it
would be acceptable to deprecate the old behaviour whilst in
incubation. Let me know if this is an incorrect assumption.
I had some specific questions for the board, I copy them below but
please not these are my notes and not from the minutes. They have not
been approved yet, I'll let you know if I misunderstood anything.
Can the PPMC accept SF's offer?
Yes
MOU necessary? What should it cover?
PPMC to decide if necessary (with mentor guidance).
Since the long term plan is to move to a
PPMC owned meta-server it might make most sense to just let SF own
this extensions site and not be distracted by what they are doing (we
have trademarks policy to ensure they don't misbehave).
Assuming trademarks are respected are we OK?
Yes (as long as no advertising on apache owned domain)
Will this address IP issues since non-ASF code will be offsite
Probably (I believe this to be a yes, but allowing for edge cases)
Advertising on the extensions download site?
OK as long as not an apache domain (incl. openoffice.org)
Redirection preferred?
Yes (see no advertising requirement). Would be better to go via an
informational page on an openoffice.org or apache.org.
So there you go. It's now over to the PPMC to get it moving. I'll
forward this mail to the infra team so that they can be ready to hand
over the keys to the current extensions site at an appropriate time.
Who is going to drive this?
Ross
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
RE: Sourceforge and extensions download site
Posted by Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:pfg@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 February 2012 11:59 PM
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Roberto Galoppini
> Subject: Re: Sourceforge and extensions download site
>
> Hello;
>
> I was expecting someone more qualified to respond but sadly this is not
> something we have much control of since this hasn't really been migrated
to
> Apache.
>
> It looks like Dave Fischer with help from Thorsten Bosbach have put up a
very
> good summary here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Extensions%20and
> %20templates
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> Pedro.
>
> (Perhaps Dave or Gavin could get Roberto in touch with with the OSUSOL
> guys?)
I have login to the servers needed. Still waiting to be told what I need to
be doing
with it.
Gav...
>
> --- Mer 1/2/12, Ross Gardler ha scritto:
>
> > Da: Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
> > Oggetto: Re: Sourceforge and extensions download site
> > A: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Data: Mercoledì 1 febbraio 2012, 04:13 Roberto,
> >
> > I'm sorry nobody had responded as yet. I've nagged the PPMC to get
> > itself together over this (on the private list). This is a more gentle
> > nag on the public list, just so you know you are not being ignored.
> >
> > Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> > On Jan 27, 2012 8:13 PM, "Roberto Galoppini" <rg...@geek.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Ross Gardler
> > <
> > > rgardler@opendirective.com>wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> As some of you will know the board meeting got
> > pushed back 6 days. It
> > > >> was, however, held last night and I was able
> > to attend. Consequently I
> > > >> am pleased to confirm that we now have a
> > go-ahead with respect to the
> > > >> Sourceforge offer to host the extensions site.
> > However, there is one
> > > >> important restriction on what we can do, so
> > I'll cover that first.
> > > >>
> > > >> There cannot be any advertising on a domain
> > name owned by the ASF,
> > > >> this includes openoffice.org.
> > > >>
> > > >> The board felt the most appropriate action
> > would be to have users
> > > >> directed to *.openoffice,org or *.apache.org
> > where they will be
> > > >> greeted by a page listing appropriate
> > extensions sites with a
> > > >> disclaimer. At a later date this would become
> > the meta-data server. I
> > > >> figured this would not be a problem as it is
> > one of the options we
> > > >> discussed.
> > > >>
> > > >> We did discuss whether this would break
> > behaviour for older OOo
> > > >> releases. If this is the case then it would be
> > acceptable to provide a
> > > >> redirect for appropriate URLs. This may need
> > to be removed for at
> > > >> graduation time, we didn't go into details
> > about this as I felt it
> > > >> would be acceptable to deprecate the old
> > behaviour whilst in
> > > >> incubation. Let me know if this is an
> > incorrect assumption.
> > > >>
> > > >> I had some specific questions for the board, I
> > copy them below but
> > > >> please not these are my notes and not from the
> > minutes. They have not
> > > >> been approved yet, I'll let you know if I
> > misunderstood anything.
> > > >>
> > > >> Can the PPMC accept SF's offer?
> > > >> Yes
> > > >>
> > > >> MOU necessary? What should it cover?
> > > >> PPMC to decide if necessary (with mentor
> > guidance).
> > > >> Since the long term plan is to move to a PPMC owned meta-server
> > > >> it might make most
> > sense to just let SF own
> > > >> this extensions site and not be distracted by
> > what they are doing (we
> > > >> have trademarks policy to ensure they don't
> > misbehave).
> > > >>
> > > >> Assuming trademarks are respected are we OK?
> > > >> Yes (as long as no advertising on apache owned
> > domain)
> > > >>
> > > >> Will this address IP issues since non-ASF code
> > will be offsite
> > > >> Probably (I believe this to be a yes, but
> > allowing for edge cases)
> > > >>
> > > >> Advertising on the extensions download site?
> > > >> OK as long as not an apache domain (incl.
> > openoffice.org)
> > > >>
> > > >> Redirection preferred?
> > > >> Yes (see no advertising requirement). Would be
> > better to go via an
> > > >> informational page on an openoffice.org or
> > apache.org.
> > > >>
> > > >> So there you go. It's now over to the PPMC to
> > get it moving. I'll
> > > >> forward this mail to the infra team so that
> > they can be ready to hand
> > > >> over the keys to the current extensions site
> > at an appropriate time.
> > > >> Who is going to drive this?
> > > >>
> > > >> Ross
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> > > >> Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective
> > > >> http://opendirective.com
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ross--
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for this update. Yes, Apache OpenOffice
> > PPMC will need to spend
> > > some
> > > > time mulling this over. But -- good news!
> > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------------------
> > > > MzK
> > > >
> > > > "Follow your bliss."
> > > > --
> > attributed to Joseph Campbell
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > we look forward to start working on it as soon as
> > possible, and we are
> > > open to do what is necessary to make it (MoU, define
> > how to handle ads
> > > out of Apache domains, IP issues, etc).
> > >
> > > Since we committed to deploy the Extension website in a
> > short time, I
> > > wonder if in the meantime we might get a copy of the
> > Drupal
> > > application and of the database of extensions to do our
> > home work,
> > > eventually providing you with all necessary
> > warranties.
> > >
> > > Roberto
> > > ====
> > > This e- mail message is intended only for the named
> > recipient(s) above. It
> > > may contain confidential and privileged information. If
> > you are not the
> > > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
> > dissemination,
> > > distribution or copying of this e-mail and any
> > attachment(s) is strictly
> > > prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> > please immediately
> > > notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete
> > the message and any
> > > attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
> > >
> > >
> >
Re: Sourceforge and extensions download site
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hello;
I was expecting someone more qualified to respond but
sadly this is not something we have much control of
since this hasn't really been migrated to Apache.
It looks like Dave Fischer with help from Thorsten Bosbach
have put up a very good summary here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Extensions%20and%20templates
Hope that helps,
Pedro.
(Perhaps Dave or Gavin could get Roberto in touch with
with the OSUSOL guys?)
--- Mer 1/2/12, Ross Gardler ha scritto:
> Da: Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
> Oggetto: Re: Sourceforge and extensions download site
> A: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Data: Mercoledì 1 febbraio 2012, 04:13
> Roberto,
>
> I'm sorry nobody had responded as yet. I've nagged the PPMC
> to get itself
> together over this (on the private list). This is a more
> gentle nag on the
> public list, just so you know you are not being ignored.
>
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and
> brevity.
> On Jan 27, 2012 8:13 PM, "Roberto Galoppini" <rg...@geek.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Ross Gardler
> <
> > rgardler@opendirective.com>wrote:
> > >
> > >> As some of you will know the board meeting got
> pushed back 6 days. It
> > >> was, however, held last night and I was able
> to attend. Consequently I
> > >> am pleased to confirm that we now have a
> go-ahead with respect to the
> > >> Sourceforge offer to host the extensions site.
> However, there is one
> > >> important restriction on what we can do, so
> I'll cover that first.
> > >>
> > >> There cannot be any advertising on a domain
> name owned by the ASF,
> > >> this includes openoffice.org.
> > >>
> > >> The board felt the most appropriate action
> would be to have users
> > >> directed to *.openoffice,org or *.apache.org
> where they will be
> > >> greeted by a page listing appropriate
> extensions sites with a
> > >> disclaimer. At a later date this would become
> the meta-data server. I
> > >> figured this would not be a problem as it is
> one of the options we
> > >> discussed.
> > >>
> > >> We did discuss whether this would break
> behaviour for older OOo
> > >> releases. If this is the case then it would be
> acceptable to provide a
> > >> redirect for appropriate URLs. This may need
> to be removed for at
> > >> graduation time, we didn't go into details
> about this as I felt it
> > >> would be acceptable to deprecate the old
> behaviour whilst in
> > >> incubation. Let me know if this is an
> incorrect assumption.
> > >>
> > >> I had some specific questions for the board, I
> copy them below but
> > >> please not these are my notes and not from the
> minutes. They have not
> > >> been approved yet, I'll let you know if I
> misunderstood anything.
> > >>
> > >> Can the PPMC accept SF's offer?
> > >> Yes
> > >>
> > >> MOU necessary? What should it cover?
> > >> PPMC to decide if necessary (with mentor
> guidance).
> > >> Since the long term plan is to move to a
> > >> PPMC owned meta-server it might make most
> sense to just let SF own
> > >> this extensions site and not be distracted by
> what they are doing (we
> > >> have trademarks policy to ensure they don't
> misbehave).
> > >>
> > >> Assuming trademarks are respected are we OK?
> > >> Yes (as long as no advertising on apache owned
> domain)
> > >>
> > >> Will this address IP issues since non-ASF code
> will be offsite
> > >> Probably (I believe this to be a yes, but
> allowing for edge cases)
> > >>
> > >> Advertising on the extensions download site?
> > >> OK as long as not an apache domain (incl.
> openoffice.org)
> > >>
> > >> Redirection preferred?
> > >> Yes (see no advertising requirement). Would be
> better to go via an
> > >> informational page on an openoffice.org or
> apache.org.
> > >>
> > >> So there you go. It's now over to the PPMC to
> get it moving. I'll
> > >> forward this mail to the infra team so that
> they can be ready to hand
> > >> over the keys to the current extensions site
> at an appropriate time.
> > >> Who is going to drive this?
> > >>
> > >> Ross
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> > >> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> > >> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Ross--
> > >
> > > Thanks for this update. Yes, Apache OpenOffice
> PPMC will need to spend
> > some
> > > time mulling this over. But -- good news!
> >
> > > --
> > >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > MzK
> > >
> > > "Follow your bliss."
> > > --
> attributed to Joseph Campbell
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > we look forward to start working on it as soon as
> possible, and we are
> > open to do what is necessary to make it (MoU, define
> how to handle ads
> > out of Apache domains, IP issues, etc).
> >
> > Since we committed to deploy the Extension website in a
> short time, I
> > wonder if in the meantime we might get a copy of the
> Drupal
> > application and of the database of extensions to do our
> home work,
> > eventually providing you with all necessary
> warranties.
> >
> > Roberto
> > ====
> > This e- mail message is intended only for the named
> recipient(s) above. It
> > may contain confidential and privileged information. If
> you are not the
> > intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination,
> > distribution or copying of this e-mail and any
> attachment(s) is strictly
> > prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
> please immediately
> > notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete
> the message and any
> > attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
> >
> >
>
Re: Sourceforge and extensions download site
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Roberto,
I'm sorry nobody had responded as yet. I've nagged the PPMC to get itself
together over this (on the private list). This is a more gentle nag on the
public list, just so you know you are not being ignored.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Jan 27, 2012 8:13 PM, "Roberto Galoppini" <rg...@geek.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Ross Gardler <
> rgardler@opendirective.com>wrote:
> >
> >> As some of you will know the board meeting got pushed back 6 days. It
> >> was, however, held last night and I was able to attend. Consequently I
> >> am pleased to confirm that we now have a go-ahead with respect to the
> >> Sourceforge offer to host the extensions site. However, there is one
> >> important restriction on what we can do, so I'll cover that first.
> >>
> >> There cannot be any advertising on a domain name owned by the ASF,
> >> this includes openoffice.org.
> >>
> >> The board felt the most appropriate action would be to have users
> >> directed to *.openoffice,org or *.apache.org where they will be
> >> greeted by a page listing appropriate extensions sites with a
> >> disclaimer. At a later date this would become the meta-data server. I
> >> figured this would not be a problem as it is one of the options we
> >> discussed.
> >>
> >> We did discuss whether this would break behaviour for older OOo
> >> releases. If this is the case then it would be acceptable to provide a
> >> redirect for appropriate URLs. This may need to be removed for at
> >> graduation time, we didn't go into details about this as I felt it
> >> would be acceptable to deprecate the old behaviour whilst in
> >> incubation. Let me know if this is an incorrect assumption.
> >>
> >> I had some specific questions for the board, I copy them below but
> >> please not these are my notes and not from the minutes. They have not
> >> been approved yet, I'll let you know if I misunderstood anything.
> >>
> >> Can the PPMC accept SF's offer?
> >> Yes
> >>
> >> MOU necessary? What should it cover?
> >> PPMC to decide if necessary (with mentor guidance).
> >> Since the long term plan is to move to a
> >> PPMC owned meta-server it might make most sense to just let SF own
> >> this extensions site and not be distracted by what they are doing (we
> >> have trademarks policy to ensure they don't misbehave).
> >>
> >> Assuming trademarks are respected are we OK?
> >> Yes (as long as no advertising on apache owned domain)
> >>
> >> Will this address IP issues since non-ASF code will be offsite
> >> Probably (I believe this to be a yes, but allowing for edge cases)
> >>
> >> Advertising on the extensions download site?
> >> OK as long as not an apache domain (incl. openoffice.org)
> >>
> >> Redirection preferred?
> >> Yes (see no advertising requirement). Would be better to go via an
> >> informational page on an openoffice.org or apache.org.
> >>
> >> So there you go. It's now over to the PPMC to get it moving. I'll
> >> forward this mail to the infra team so that they can be ready to hand
> >> over the keys to the current extensions site at an appropriate time.
> >> Who is going to drive this?
> >>
> >> Ross
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> >> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> >> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
> >>
> >
> >
> > Ross--
> >
> > Thanks for this update. Yes, Apache OpenOffice PPMC will need to spend
> some
> > time mulling this over. But -- good news!
>
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "Follow your bliss."
> > -- attributed to Joseph Campbell
>
> Hi all,
>
> we look forward to start working on it as soon as possible, and we are
> open to do what is necessary to make it (MoU, define how to handle ads
> out of Apache domains, IP issues, etc).
>
> Since we committed to deploy the Extension website in a short time, I
> wonder if in the meantime we might get a copy of the Drupal
> application and of the database of extensions to do our home work,
> eventually providing you with all necessary warranties.
>
> Roberto
> ====
> This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It
> may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
> intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately
> notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any
> attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
>
>
Re: Sourceforge and extensions download site
Posted by Roberto Galoppini <rg...@geek.net>.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
>
>> As some of you will know the board meeting got pushed back 6 days. It
>> was, however, held last night and I was able to attend. Consequently I
>> am pleased to confirm that we now have a go-ahead with respect to the
>> Sourceforge offer to host the extensions site. However, there is one
>> important restriction on what we can do, so I'll cover that first.
>>
>> There cannot be any advertising on a domain name owned by the ASF,
>> this includes openoffice.org.
>>
>> The board felt the most appropriate action would be to have users
>> directed to *.openoffice,org or *.apache.org where they will be
>> greeted by a page listing appropriate extensions sites with a
>> disclaimer. At a later date this would become the meta-data server. I
>> figured this would not be a problem as it is one of the options we
>> discussed.
>>
>> We did discuss whether this would break behaviour for older OOo
>> releases. If this is the case then it would be acceptable to provide a
>> redirect for appropriate URLs. This may need to be removed for at
>> graduation time, we didn't go into details about this as I felt it
>> would be acceptable to deprecate the old behaviour whilst in
>> incubation. Let me know if this is an incorrect assumption.
>>
>> I had some specific questions for the board, I copy them below but
>> please not these are my notes and not from the minutes. They have not
>> been approved yet, I'll let you know if I misunderstood anything.
>>
>> Can the PPMC accept SF's offer?
>> Yes
>>
>> MOU necessary? What should it cover?
>> PPMC to decide if necessary (with mentor guidance).
>> Since the long term plan is to move to a
>> PPMC owned meta-server it might make most sense to just let SF own
>> this extensions site and not be distracted by what they are doing (we
>> have trademarks policy to ensure they don't misbehave).
>>
>> Assuming trademarks are respected are we OK?
>> Yes (as long as no advertising on apache owned domain)
>>
>> Will this address IP issues since non-ASF code will be offsite
>> Probably (I believe this to be a yes, but allowing for edge cases)
>>
>> Advertising on the extensions download site?
>> OK as long as not an apache domain (incl. openoffice.org)
>>
>> Redirection preferred?
>> Yes (see no advertising requirement). Would be better to go via an
>> informational page on an openoffice.org or apache.org.
>>
>> So there you go. It's now over to the PPMC to get it moving. I'll
>> forward this mail to the infra team so that they can be ready to hand
>> over the keys to the current extensions site at an appropriate time.
>> Who is going to drive this?
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>
>
>
> Ross--
>
> Thanks for this update. Yes, Apache OpenOffice PPMC will need to spend some
> time mulling this over. But -- good news!
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Follow your bliss."
> -- attributed to Joseph Campbell
Hi all,
we look forward to start working on it as soon as possible, and we are
open to do what is necessary to make it (MoU, define how to handle ads
out of Apache domains, IP issues, etc).
Since we committed to deploy the Extension website in a short time, I
wonder if in the meantime we might get a copy of the Drupal
application and of the database of extensions to do our home work,
eventually providing you with all necessary warranties.
Roberto
====
This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
Re: Sourceforge and extensions download site
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> As some of you will know the board meeting got pushed back 6 days. It
> was, however, held last night and I was able to attend. Consequently I
> am pleased to confirm that we now have a go-ahead with respect to the
> Sourceforge offer to host the extensions site. However, there is one
> important restriction on what we can do, so I'll cover that first.
>
> There cannot be any advertising on a domain name owned by the ASF,
> this includes openoffice.org.
>
> The board felt the most appropriate action would be to have users
> directed to *.openoffice,org or *.apache.org where they will be
> greeted by a page listing appropriate extensions sites with a
> disclaimer. At a later date this would become the meta-data server. I
> figured this would not be a problem as it is one of the options we
> discussed.
>
> We did discuss whether this would break behaviour for older OOo
> releases. If this is the case then it would be acceptable to provide a
> redirect for appropriate URLs. This may need to be removed for at
> graduation time, we didn't go into details about this as I felt it
> would be acceptable to deprecate the old behaviour whilst in
> incubation. Let me know if this is an incorrect assumption.
>
> I had some specific questions for the board, I copy them below but
> please not these are my notes and not from the minutes. They have not
> been approved yet, I'll let you know if I misunderstood anything.
>
> Can the PPMC accept SF's offer?
> Yes
>
> MOU necessary? What should it cover?
> PPMC to decide if necessary (with mentor guidance).
> Since the long term plan is to move to a
> PPMC owned meta-server it might make most sense to just let SF own
> this extensions site and not be distracted by what they are doing (we
> have trademarks policy to ensure they don't misbehave).
>
> Assuming trademarks are respected are we OK?
> Yes (as long as no advertising on apache owned domain)
>
> Will this address IP issues since non-ASF code will be offsite
> Probably (I believe this to be a yes, but allowing for edge cases)
>
> Advertising on the extensions download site?
> OK as long as not an apache domain (incl. openoffice.org)
>
> Redirection preferred?
> Yes (see no advertising requirement). Would be better to go via an
> informational page on an openoffice.org or apache.org.
>
> So there you go. It's now over to the PPMC to get it moving. I'll
> forward this mail to the infra team so that they can be ready to hand
> over the keys to the current extensions site at an appropriate time.
> Who is going to drive this?
>
> Ross
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
Ross--
Thanks for this update. Yes, Apache OpenOffice PPMC will need to spend some
time mulling this over. But -- good news!
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Follow your bliss."
-- attributed to Joseph Campbell