[VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

[Juergen Schmidt-6]

Hi all,

this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating). This will be the first incubator release
for Apache OpenOffice and a key milestone to continue the success of
OpenOffice.org.


This release candidate provides the following important key changes
compared to former OpenOffice releases:
(1) Code clean up to remove all copyleft components and external
dependencies
(2) Reworked or introduced LICENSE and NOTICE file to reflect and
document the used licenses of the code itself as well as of external 3rd
party libraries
(3) MD5, SHA1, SHA512 hashes and GPG signatures for all of artifacts

For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/aoo-34-release-notes.html.

The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
releases for 16 languages) and further information how to verify and
review Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) can be found on the following
wiki page:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+%28incubating%29+Release+Candidate


Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating).

The vote starts now and will be open until:

    UTC midnight Wednesday, 1 May: 2012-05-01 24:00 UTC.

The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list and
is still ongoing for 2 hours.

Vote thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F920630.7060003%40googlemail.com%3E

Because of traveling I have to start the IPMC vote now and have to
reference a preliminary RESULT email on ooo-dev. As soon as I will be
online again I will send a reference to the final vote result.

Result thread: <not available yet in archive, pending>

The vote will be open for more than 5 days.

    [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
    [ ]  0 Don't care
    [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Marvin Humphrey]

2012/4/25 Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>:
>   [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
>   [ ]  0 Don't care
>   [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

+1 IPMC

  * Signatures and sums look good.
  * RAT report at <http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html>
    running clean!
  * LICENSE and NOTICE look to adhere to ASF dev documentation.  There
    are some encoding and line-ending issues, but they do not unduly impede
    communication of the logical content.
  * I'm satisfied by what I've seen of the documentation that the podling has
    assembled detailing the IP clearance process.

Marvin Humphrey

marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo-rc $ gpg --verify
aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz.asc
gpg: Signature made Thu Apr 19 02:26:26 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <jsc@...>"
gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F  A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo-rc $ shasum --check
aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz.sha1
aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz: OK
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo-rc $ shasum --check
aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz.sha512
aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz: OK
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo-rc $ gpg --print-md MD5
aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz
aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz: 2A 63 BE 21 1A BF B6 43  FE 16 93 CE 2E 4F 97
                                 49
marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo-rc $ cat aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz.md5
2a63be211abfb643fe1693ce2e4f9749  aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Dave Fisher-5]

I already voted +1 IPMC in the ooo-dev voting thread.

Just noting that here.

AOO 3.4 (incubating) Vote is now at 2 +1 IPMC votes.....

Regards,
Dave

On Apr 26, 2012, at 8:28 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:

> 2012/4/25 Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>:
>>   [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
>>   [ ]  0 Don't care
>>   [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> +1 IPMC
>
>  * Signatures and sums look good.
>  * RAT report at <http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html>
>    running clean!
>  * LICENSE and NOTICE look to adhere to ASF dev documentation.  There
>    are some encoding and line-ending issues, but they do not unduly impede
>    communication of the logical content.
>  * I'm satisfied by what I've seen of the documentation that the podling has
>    assembled detailing the IP clearance process.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo-rc $ gpg --verify
> aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz.asc
> gpg: Signature made Thu Apr 19 02:26:26 2012 PDT using RSA key ID 51B5FDE8
> gpg: Good signature from "Juergen Schnmidt <jsc@...>"
> gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
> gpg:                 aka "Juergen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...>"
> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
> Primary key fingerprint: D09F B15F 1A24 768D DF1F  A29C CFEE F316 51B5 FDE8
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo-rc $ shasum --check
> aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz.sha1
> aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz: OK
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo-rc $ shasum --check
> aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz.sha512
> aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz: OK
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo-rc $ gpg --print-md MD5
> aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz
> aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz: 2A 63 BE 21 1A BF B6 43  FE 16 93 CE 2E 4F 97
>                                 49
> marvin@smokey:~/Desktop/aoo-rc $ cat aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz.md5
> 2a63be211abfb643fe1693ce2e4f9749  aoo-3.4.0-incubating-src.tar.gz
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Juergen Schmidt-6]

On 4/26/12 12:44 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
> OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating). This will be the first incubator release
> for Apache OpenOffice and a key milestone to continue the success of
> OpenOffice.org.
>
>
> This release candidate provides the following important key changes
> compared to former OpenOffice releases:
> (1) Code clean up to remove all copyleft components and external
> dependencies
> (2) Reworked or introduced LICENSE and NOTICE file to reflect and
> document the used licenses of the code itself as well as of external 3rd
> party libraries
> (3) MD5, SHA1, SHA512 hashes and GPG signatures for all of artifacts
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/aoo-34-release-notes.html.
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 16 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) can be found on the following
> wiki page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+%28incubating%29+Release+Candidate
>
>
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4
> (incubating).
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC midnight Wednesday, 1 May: 2012-05-01 24:00 UTC.
>
> The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list and
> is still ongoing for 2 hours.
>
> Vote thread:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F920630.7060003%40googlemail.com%3E
>
>
> Because of traveling I have to start the IPMC vote now and have to
> reference a preliminary RESULT email on ooo-dev. As soon as I will be
> online again I will send a reference to the final vote result.
>
> Result thread: <not available yet in archive, pending>

to complete the missing piece, here the link to the result thread

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F9A452A.9000707%40googlemail.com%3E

Juergen

>
> The vote will be open for more than 5 days.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Jim Jagielski]

On Apr 25, 2012, at 6:44 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> The vote will be open for more than 5 days.
>
>   [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
>   [ ]  0 Don't care
>   [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>

+1 (binding)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Juergen Schmidt-6]

On 4/26/12 12:44 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> this is a call for vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
> OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating). This will be the first incubator release
> for Apache OpenOffice and a key milestone to continue the success of
> OpenOffice.org.
>
>
> This release candidate provides the following important key changes
> compared to former OpenOffice releases:
> (1) Code clean up to remove all copyleft components and external
> dependencies
> (2) Reworked or introduced LICENSE and NOTICE file to reflect and
> document the used licenses of the code itself as well as of external 3rd
> party libraries
> (3) MD5, SHA1, SHA512 hashes and GPG signatures for all of artifacts
>
> For a detailed feature overview please see the release notes under
> https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/aoo-34-release-notes.html.
>
> The release candidate artifacts (source release, as well as binary
> releases for 16 languages) and further information how to verify and
> review Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) can be found on the following
> wiki page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+%28incubating%29+Release+Candidate
>
>
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4
> (incubating).
>
> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>
> UTC midnight Wednesday, 1 May: 2012-05-01 24:00 UTC.

I did a mistake here, May 1th is on Tuesday and not on Wednesday. My
initial intention was to run the vote until May 1th. But we can extend
it if people have planned with Wednesday. Please let me know.

If it is ok for the IPMC I would correct it now to

UTC midnight Tuesday,1 May: 2012-05-01 24:00 UTC


Regards

Juergen

>
> The PPMC vote took already place on the public ooo-dev mailing list and
> is still ongoing for 2 hours.
>
> Vote thread:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F920630.7060003%40googlemail.com%3E
>
>
> Because of traveling I have to start the IPMC vote now and have to
> reference a preliminary RESULT email on ooo-dev. As soon as I will be
> online again I will send a reference to the final vote result.
>
> Result thread: <not available yet in archive, pending>
>
> The vote will be open for more than 5 days.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating)
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Daniel Shahaf-2]

Jürgen Schmidt wrote on Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 08:37:10 +0200:

> On 4/26/12 12:44 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> The vote starts now and will be open until:
>>
>> UTC midnight Wednesday, 1 May: 2012-05-01 24:00 UTC.
>
> I did a mistake here, May 1th is on Tuesday and not on Wednesday. My  
> initial intention was to run the vote until May 1th. But we can extend  
> it if people have planned with Wednesday. Please let me know.
>
> If it is ok for the IPMC I would correct it now to
>
> UTC midnight Tuesday,1 May: 2012-05-01 24:00 UTC
>

By which you mean 36.5 hours from now, right?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Norbert Thiebaud]

I trust that the Patent issues raised by Rob Weir on this mailing-list in

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3COF1A1F1F97.0BA57C1E-ON852578A4.004EC606-852578A4.004FC4FE@...%3E

have been disclosed and addressed to the satisfaction of the IPMC ?

Norbert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

@Norbert,

I don't see any mention of patent issues in that message.  Since Symphony-related contributions have not occurred yet, they certainly are irrelevant to the release of Apache OpenOffice (incubating) 3.4.0.  It is a good thing that IBM will ensure there is no encumbrance in anything that they contribute under an IBM SGA.

In any case, unlike the situation with the simple declarations used by many copyleft projects, iCLAs and SGAs provide clear declarations concerning patents as does the ALv2 itself.

If you know of a specific IP difficulty, I am sure that the AOO PPMC and the IPMC would appreciate having sufficient details to be able to confirm the consequences.

What do you have in mind?

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Norbert Thiebaud [mailto:nthiebaud@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 21:34
To: general@...
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

I trust that the Patent issues raised by Rob Weir on this mailing-list in

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3COF1A1F1F97.0BA57C1E-ON852578A4.004EC606-852578A4.004FC4FE@...%3E

have been disclosed and addressed to the satisfaction of the IPMC ?

Norbert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@...> wrote:
> @Norbert,
>
> I don't see any mention of patent issues in that message.

it says:
"But one thing not to lose track of is that Symphony has done IP
remediation at many levels.  Where we've worked around things, we'll be
able to contribute our fixes back. [..](I'm talking patents)

Symphony is based on OOo so 'remediation' would have to be
'remediation' to the OOo code base, which is the code base of AOO. So
presumably the Allege Patent issues where in OOo and possibly are
still in AOO... furthermore they could not have been Sun/Oracle
Patent, otherwise they would have been covered by LGPLv3, so the
Oracle SGA does not help there...


>
> If you know of a specific IP difficulty, I am sure that the AOO PPMC and the IPMC would appreciate having sufficient details to be able to confirm the consequences.

I am not the one that claimed that there was such IP difficulty, I'm
just reminding everyone that Rob claimed at the beginning of the
project that such difficulties and I quote: " I know with certainty
that we've fixed things."

At the time these issue have been pushed aside as irrelevant to the
admission of the project in the incubator, and that such concerned
would be addressed in due time prior to Release...

>
> What do you have in mind?

Since I have not seen any discussion or patch related to that topic, I
must have missed them. Hence my inquiry.

Norbert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Juergen Schmidt-6]

The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice (incubator) RC1  has
concluded.

The ballot passed.

VOTE TALLY

+1:

IPMC members:

+1 Marvin Humphrey
+1 Dave Fisher
+1 Jim Jagielski

For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F9A452A.9000707%40googlemail.com%3E 



Thank you for your support

Juergen



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I have no reason to believe that the remediation Rob speaks of has anything to do with any part of OpenOffice.org.  I would presume it matters with regard to the IP of IBM or others licensed by IBM that may apply to Symphony content beyond whatever OpenOffice.org code they started with.  

With regard to OASIS Standard ODF, of course, there is already the IP regime that applies to IBM as a contributor, just as for Sun Microsystems and Oracle.  There is also the Oracle SGA.

So, do you have knowledge of a specific IP conflict that Apache OpenOffice.org is subject to that is somehow not applicable to LibreOffice and its inheritance from OpenOffice.org ?

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Norbert Thiebaud [mailto:nthiebaud@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 22:31
To: general@...; dennis.hamilton@...
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@...> wrote:
> @Norbert,
>
> I don't see any mention of patent issues in that message.

it says:
"But one thing not to lose track of is that Symphony has done IP
remediation at many levels.  Where we've worked around things, we'll be
able to contribute our fixes back. [..](I'm talking patents)

Symphony is based on OOo so 'remediation' would have to be
'remediation' to the OOo code base, which is the code base of AOO. So
presumably the Allege Patent issues where in OOo and possibly are
still in AOO... furthermore they could not have been Sun/Oracle
Patent, otherwise they would have been covered by LGPLv3, so the
Oracle SGA does not help there...


>
> If you know of a specific IP difficulty, I am sure that the AOO PPMC and the IPMC would appreciate having sufficient details to be able to confirm the consequences.

I am not the one that claimed that there was such IP difficulty, I'm
just reminding everyone that Rob claimed at the beginning of the
project that such difficulties and I quote: " I know with certainty
that we've fixed things."

At the time these issue have been pushed aside as irrelevant to the
admission of the project in the incubator, and that such concerned
would be addressed in due time prior to Release...

>
> What do you have in mind?

Since I have not seen any discussion or patch related to that topic, I
must have missed them. Hence my inquiry.

Norbert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@...> wrote:
> I have no reason to believe that the remediation Rob speaks of has anything to do with any part of OpenOffice.org.

You mean except for Rob's own statement ?

"But one thing not to lose track of is that Symphony has done IP
remediation at many levels.  Where we've worked around things, we'll be
able to contribute our **fixes** **back**." (emphasis mine)

How can you logically conclude that Rob is not talking about
remediation in the OOo code-base ?
So unless such remediation was indeed done also in the to-be-released
AOO code, then the PPMC would be knowingly releasing patent traps.
Either that or Rob's above statement was pure FUD.

Norbert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

@Norbert,

It seems more direct to ask Rob what he was thinking of when he made that post last June.

I can imagine two kinds of remediation that might have happened or be needed with respect to Symphony:

 1. Perhaps IBM detected IP issues in the OO.o code base they received under license from Sun and they cleaned out those IP problems in their customization.  That means there is potentially an IP problem that remains in the AOO and the LO code bases.  It is not clear that it has anything to do with IP that IBM possesses, although it could have.  They would have had no reason to work around their own IP for their own use in Symphony though.

 2. Perhaps IBM relied on IP that they had owned or licensed in the customization they did.  Before committing Symphony improvements to AOO, they need to "remediate" those to have it be clean.  

Note that there is no issue with regard to IBM IP in a contribution from IBM, since contribution to ODF under the OASIS IP regime for ODF and to Apache under the rules of iCLAs and SGAs grants a license to those patents.  Of course, IBM could remove those dependencies on essential claims anyhow and avoid licensing.

I don't see how any of this impacts the just-concluded vote to approve release of Apache OpenOffice (incubating) 3.4.  

If you are worrying about being submarined, I think a bigger concern is that there may be unexploded landmines in the existing LO and original OO.o codebases. It still has nothing to do with what IP clearance means here.  However, if IBM (and Rob) know of an IP issue in the code base that won't be detected in how IP clearance was accomplished, there is an obligation to report it.  The fact that there has been no such revelation has to be sufficient at this point.  

If you want to see proof of negatives, I suggest that you conduct that plowing in your own fields. Or try groklaw, perhaps, where there is a willing chorus of believers and supportable facts are not required.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Norbert Thiebaud [mailto:nthiebaud@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 23:21
To: general@...; dennis.hamilton@...
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@...> wrote:
> I have no reason to believe that the remediation Rob speaks of has anything to do with any part of OpenOffice.org.

You mean except for Rob's own statement ?

"But one thing not to lose track of is that Symphony has done IP
remediation at many levels.  Where we've worked around things, we'll be
able to contribute our **fixes** **back**." (emphasis mine)

How can you logically conclude that Rob is not talking about
remediation in the OOo code-base ?
So unless such remediation was indeed done also in the to-be-released
AOO code, then the PPMC would be knowingly releasing patent traps.
Either that or Rob's above statement was pure FUD.

Norbert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@...> wrote:
>if IBM (and Rob) know of an IP issue in the code base

This is not a _if_ there is an affirmative public statement by Rob
that this the case

>  The fact that there has been no such revelation has to be sufficient at this point.

But there was such 'revelation', and at the time this was punted as a
'problem to be address later while doing IP diligence prior to
release"

>
> If you want to see proof of negatives,

No, I'm merely pointing out that Rob/IBM claimed to have such
knowledge. An affirmative statement. So either such statement was
truthful, and it should be easy for the PPMC to make sure that the
undisclosed problems alleged to exist have been fixed, or this
statement was not truthful.

Norbert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...

[Louis Suárez-Potts-2]

Congratulations to all and thanks to Juergen, too. But the words are
not enough; what is, is use.

To that end, I've used the Mac version (and also Linux, though less
so) daily, and it has been great. I've also used it with Google Docs,
with Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, with Calligra (KOffice) and
others. The application has not disappointed and also not crashed. (I
wish I could say the same for other application I find myself using.)

One other point. The release process for OOo was as efficient as it
could be but also painful to many. I don't think that I've heard
similar expressions of frustration and pain here.

That's *great*.

Cheers,
Louis
On 2 May 2012 01:46, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@...> wrote:

> The vote period for releasing Apache OpenOffice (incubator) RC1  has
> concluded.
>
> The ballot passed.
>
> VOTE TALLY
>
> +1:
>
> IPMC members:
>
> +1 Marvin Humphrey
> +1 Dave Fisher
> +1 Jim Jagielski
>
> For reference see also the vote thread on ooo-dev
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3C4F9A452A.9000707%40googlemail.com%3E
>
>
> Thank you for your support
>
> Juergen
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...