thank you for letting us know that you are working on it.
Ideally it would be great to have a few developers working on it,
especially to fix known security issues, and sufficient activity to make
It is true that LOOL has been in a kind of limbo. The repository has
been frozen "temporarily" but it kind of became a permanent situation.
In your opinion, would reopening the repository for 12 months provide
enough time for a community to form around it?
It would require warnings until all the security bugs have been fixed
and that it might not be well maintained until we see constant and
sufficient activity but it could be an option to make it up for the
longer than expected temporary freeze of the repository.
If after 12 months we don't see much activity then we could be certain
that the community is not really interested in working on LOOL.
It would be great to know if others have other
takes/options/alternatives on this subject.
On 21/06/2022 21:14, Andreas Mantke wrote:
only a short info that I'm currently working on an update of the LOOL
source code with the latest patches. Because I have an issue with my
newly bought hardware I had to migrate my environment (etc.) to another
hardware (will need some hours of spare time). Thus I was not able to
finish my work during this week.
If someone wants to join me, feel free to send me an email.
Once the necessary bits are done, I'll come back and try to make a
proposal for the further process to get LOOL back under the TDF umbrella.
Am 21.06.22 um 14:15 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
just a heads up in case the community would like to come up with
proposals in regards to LibreOffice On-Line.
As you might be aware LOOL's repository has been frozen since the
major code contributor decided to move it to GitHub and not contribute
back to TDF's repository.
At the time there has been a debate about it but then nothing
actionable seems to have been proposed by the community since then.
Recently an ex-member of the ESC proposed to the ESC to archive LOOL
 and during the following ESC meeting no concerns were expressed
for doing so .
The "Attic Policy" , that has been written to archive obsolete
projects, states that the Board will need to vote on the archival
process to confirm ESC's choice.
It is likely that the board will need to vote on it soon so if the
community would like to do something with LOOL there might be a small
window of opportunity to have your preferences on what to do with it
If nobody comes along proposing to look after it and update if so that
it could be brought back into an usable form for the community then
the board might have to vote for having LOOL archived.
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog
Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
To unsubscribe e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy