[tdf-discuss] Re: IAccessible2, IBM, Oracle (was: (...) Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)

Hi Christophe, *,

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Christophe Strobbe
<christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be> wrote:
> At 18:21 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Christophe Strobbe
> > <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be> wrote:
> > > At 16:14 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Christophe Strobbe
> > > > <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be> wrote:
> > > > > At 23:16 4-6-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > If Oracle asks IBM to implement IAccessible2 on version 3.1 and releases
> > > OpenOffice.org 3.2 before IBM has submitted the IAccessible2
> > > implementation,
> > > how is IBM to blame?
> >
> > Reality check please. 1st of all: What is stuff you know, and what is
> > stuff you guess?
> > Do you know that the 3.1 based ia2 dump/work is because Oracle asked for
> > it?
> > If Oracle asked for it, do you know when Oracle asked for it?
> > Do you think Oracle really is so stupid to explicitly ask for code
> > based on an old branch?
> > If Oracle did ask for it, and IBM did "contribute" - why wasn't the
> > cws integrated?
>
> CS:
> What reality check? I talked to and exchanged mails with people in
> Oracle and IBM. Since September 2008 I have been involved in a European
> R&D project on accessibility where Oracle (previously Sun) is one of the
> biggest partners. So I talked to accessibility folks at Oracle. That
> is reality.
> Yes, IBM donated an IAccessible2 implementation to Oracle. Malte
> Timmermann talked about this at FOSDEM 2011:
> <http://www.fosdem.org/2011/schedule/event/ooo_accessibility>.

That is completely missing my point once again. You cannot deduce from
that that IBM did the work to port it to a 3.x codebase and
"re-donate" the code that was dumped on the 1.1 codeline. Who had to
do the work is unclear. And despite you apparently having some deeper
insight than the rest of us, you just don't clarify this. So for me it
stays guesswork.

You again evaded the question "What do you know, what do you guess".
Whether you have been in talks or in some projects involved shows your
overall interest/competence in accessibility matters, but absolutely
nothing in this concrete question. Maybe you know, maybe you don't.
All I know is that you're writing in a "what-if" style, making
assumptions, but never "I know that it was like that".

> At 18:21 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> > 2nd) Obviously you cannot integrate something that is not ready.
> > Why was it not ready? Because nobody worked on it.
>
> CS: I throw your own question back to you: "What is stuff you know, and
> what is stuff you guess?" ;-)

Well, I know about cws system, I know that this is a rather
high-profile feature, I know that people like to get rid of work
instead of carrying it along for years. So I don't know what happened
within the cws, but it is pretty clear to me that it wasn't ready for
inclusion, as otherwise it would have been included.
Again: that feature was promised for years, nothing did happen. And my
whole point is about the credibility of IBM's announcements to
collaborate.
All that I see & know for sure is that it took 5 years and the code
still is not in the repo.

> At 18:21 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> > Who could do the
> > work on it? Of course best the developers who know the code, i.e IBM
> > developers.
> > And you cannot delay a release for years. (the cws Caolan mentioned in
> > the blog-comment was created in 2010-05 - while the branch-off for 3.2
> > already happened 2009-09 more than half a year earlier)
> >
> > > Between 3.1 and 3.2 the code had changed and had been moved to another
> > > type of repository.
> >
> > Again reality check. Oracle surely did ask for the code to be
> > contributed against the current, actively being-worked-on codeline.
>
> CS: Again: "What is stuff you know, and what is stuff you guess?"

Please, don't try so hard to act stupid. Like any software development
company would ask for code for an obsolete codeline instead of
current-development line. Old codeline had feature freeze and stuff,
so you get into conflict with your very own policies.
IBM can say "that old codebase is all we can offer", and Oracle can
accept that compromise, but surely this is not what someone explicitly
*asks* for.

If you know better, explicitly state so. Otherwise → reality check.
And with that I mean applying common sense.

> Oracle had released a newer version by the time IBM submitted their
> code. Fact: this was stated in public at FOSDEM 2011.

So: They asked for *current* codeline, but IBM was so slow to provide
the code (and didn't bother to update it to the >6months later
codeline).
This perfectly proves my point after all.

> At 18:21 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> > A
> > codeline that is not in feature-freeze. What IBM then delivers is a
> > completely different question. Also whether Oracle/Sun asks for it in
> > 2008, but IBM delivers in 2010, it's obvious that code makes progress.
>
> CS: Obviously. Nobody is debating that code makes progress.
> I don't know when Oracle asked for it.
> IBM promised to add IAccessible2 in 2007
> "IBM joins OpenOffice.org community - will contribute IAccessible2 support":
> <http://blogs.oracle.com/korn/entry/ibm_joins_openoffice_org_community>
> (10 September 2007).
> A few weeks later IBM wrote they were adding it: "IAccessible2 is in or
> being
> implemented in these products today: (...)
> * Open Office (IBM is just beginning the contribution effort)":
> <https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/schwer/tags/windows?lang=en>
> (27 September 2007).
> In July 2008, people said it that it shouldn't be expected before the end
> of 2008 (OpenOffice.org 3.x but not 3.0):
> <http://www.freelists.org/post/nvda/nvda-and-openoffice,13>.
> The contribution was mentioned again at teh OpenOffice.org conference
> in November 2008 (in a talk by Michael Karasick, Director of Lotus
> Development IBM China):
> <http://blogs.oracle.com/malte/entry/iaccessible2_or_ibm_to_contribute>.

Your point being? That I'm correct? Sure, that's all I was writing.
IBM's announcement wasn't worth anything. more than 30 developers, but
none actively working on collaboration with the OOo project, no code
flowed from IBM to OOo during that time, apart from useless code-dumps
against ancient codelines. And as stressed multiple times: Providing
useless code is not what I understand as collaboration/contributing to
the project. The codedump has proven to be useless, as in the 5 years
we still are at the same point: IBM promising to contribute the IA2
stuff.

> At 18:21 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> > > That is the reason for the complex and time-consuming
> > > integration work that Oracle needed to do for IAccessible2.
> >
> > NO! Why does it have to be Oracle to do the integration work. Again
> > one of the points about collaboration. Just uploading a
> > million-line-codepatch somewhere is not contributing. It is complying
> > with whatever deals that were signed or to comply with license matters
> > at best.
>
> CS: Yes, the collaboration you write about is what *should* happen,
> but that is not the version I heard from Oracle.

Yes!!! So you ultimately agree with me. IBM did not collaborate in the past.

> At 18:21 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> > > The integration and testing were still in progress when Oracle decided
> > > to stop investing in OpenOffice.org. As far as I know, that is why
> > > the IAccessible2 code did not end up in public repositories.
> >
> > Again this is stupid argumentation. We're talking about a OpenSource
> > software here after all.
>
> CS: You can call the argumentation stupid, but the integration and testing
> *were* still in progress when Oracle decided to give up on OpenOffice.org.
> Don't blame the messenger.

I don't blame the messenger, but starting/doing all the work in a
private repository is stupid to begin with. That way you just *have*
to do all the work yourself. And this is stupid. There are people
interested in IA2 after all, and those might have helped to get the
code into shape. But as it was all private, and not even known that
work was being done, it is all Oracle (and IBM) to blame that no
visible progress was made. Apparently the cws was close to completion,
but thanks to the move to Apache, it will take another year until
end-users will see it (I don't think that apache-OOo will manage to
release something comparable to existing OOo/LO within the next 6
months)

> [Aside:
> OOo was not exclusively open source, if version 1.1.4 was dual-licensed
> under
> LGPL and SISSL to enable IBM to base Lotus Symphony on it without releasing
> changes to the source code. Sun withdrew SISSL but later relicensed OOo to
> IBM under a private agreement (see top of
> <http://www.h-online.com/open/features/OpenOffice-splits-and-pirouettes-1270296.html?page=2>).]

Yes, this is the obvious explanation on why the IA2 codedump was based
on the 1.1.x codeline. But doesn't change anything about IBM's
lipservice. They didn't announce they would collaborate with Sun
Microsystems, they did announce they would work with and contribute to
the OpenOffice.org project. And you cannot contribute when you keep
all changes for yourself.

So you're again supporting my POV

> At 18:21 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> > And we're not talking about weeks, but years.
> > We're talking about big announcements to dedicate more than 30
> > developers to work on the officesuite and collaborate with upstream,
> > but no results after 4/5 years.
> > And this further proves my point about questioning IBM's commitment.
> > Lip service, but no actual work that ends up "upstream".
> > They did not contribute to OOo, but they did drop some code at Oracle.
> > Again this is not my idea of contributing to the project.
>
> CS: I agree that this is not how open source development should be done.
> My intention was not to defend this but to highlight the importance
> of IAccessible2.

Oh, my intention has never been to belittle IAccessible2 or
accessibility in general - It was from the very beginning questioning
the commitment, the numbers thrown into the discussions when it comes
on who will manage apache-OOo.

> At 18:21 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> > > The contribution to the 1.1.5 codeline is irrelevant because completely
> > > outdated. I added that note merely as backgound information.
> >
> > No, it is not irrelevant, because it is the very same situation. Big
> > announcement "we will conribute, we have lots of manpower" but no
> > results. That's the whole point. IBM doesn't have a record of being a
> > good contributor, the opposite is the case. And to change this, we
> > don't need another lip-service announcement, but actual code
> > contribution.
> > That you can only point at Ia2, but not at other work is further prove
> > of this topic.
>
> CS: That does not prove anything. I have no overview of the code or its
> contributors.

Of course it does. IBM made big announcements, and after 5 years you
cannot name any significant contribution. So how much is IBM's
announcement worth?
And the "you" was not a personal you, but addressed to the general
public. One cannot name significant contributions, because there are
none.

> Just like you, I don't like big announcements that lead to few concrete
> results. The intention of my original response was to draw attention to
> IAccessible2, which is a valuable contribution in its own right, even
> though you clearly expected more from IBM.

For my point it is irrelevant whether it is IA2 or something else. My
only point was about IBM's credibility/history as a contributor.

> At 18:21 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> > And don't get me wrong, I'm sure that you'll see IBM contributing to
> > apache-OOo, at least until you can actually build something from
> > Apache-OOo sources you can ship to the users, but after that I'm
> > pretty sure that IBM will focus again on its very own Symphony and
> > only do the necessary stuff to keep their own stuff compatible.
> >
> > And don't get me wrong²: I'd be happy if IBM proves me wrong.
> >
> > > If Sun/Oracle engineers state that IBM donated the IAccessible2
> > > implementation, it is unlikely that this piece of work was done
> > > by Sun/Oracle.
> >
> > Again it is not about the Ia2 work itself, but the porting from the
> > old 1.1.5 codedrop to "current" codeline.
> > You apparently don't know any hard facts about this, neither do I. So
> > while you claim that Oracle did ask IBM for the code ported to the 3.1
> > codeline, and that IBM then followed this request, I question this
> > scenario.
>
> CS: Instead of questioning my credibility, you could ask people at
> Oracle and IBM who were involved in this. That's what I did. And you?

So why don't you post the concrete answers then? You keep going on
with assumptions.
This behavior is used as trolling. Repeating the same stuff over and
over again, despite being asked to clarify. Going in circles. And yes,
I'm also to blame because I'm stupid enough to believe you're
interested in finding an answer, but instead your objective seems to
be juggling with words.
I didn't question your credibility, I did question your knowledge
about the facts regarding this specific topic (the donation of code by
IBM, not about accessibility in general). Or better the way on how you
present your knowledge (or lack thereof) in this thread.

Despite the huge mails, you didn't provide any more facts. You didn't
bother to clarify, on the contrary you're trolling like  "I contacted
all kinds of people, but I won't tell you what I know". This is a
waste of time.

> At 18:21 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> > Or even if IBM did contribute it against the 3.1 codeline: Why is it
> > still not integrated? This can only mean that a huge amount of work
> > is/was still left.
> >
> > You mentioned that the vcs moved between 3.1 and 3.2 - but sorry
> > again, this is /no/ technical hindrance to switch from one vcs system
> > to another. The code is the same, no matter what. And you got the very
> > same "branch points" to base your work on in the new VCS system.
>
> CS: IBM worked on version X that came from vcs system A; when they
> donated the code, OOo was at version Y in vcs system B. Consequence:
> it took time to find out what code should go where.
> That's what I heard at FOSDEM in February. Interpret it as you like.

Yes, I interpret it as a lame excuse. It is trivial to create a patch
with the changes from vcs A and apply it to vcs B.

> At 18:21 5-7-2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> > > > (about the status of
> > > > iaccessible2), As Rob is strongly against releasing OOo 3.4 with the
> > > > "blessing" of the apache-OOo project ("take that discussion to the old
> > > > OOo-lists" basically (paraphrased)), I doubt there will be a OOo 3.4.0
> > > > at all.
> > >
> > > If that is true, that will be a loss for the accessibility of
> > > OpenOffice.org
> > > and LibreOffice on Windows.
> >
> > The project did wait 5 years for it, it can wait another two...
>
> CS: If you think it's OK for blind users on Windows to wait another two
> years [1],
> I'll start recommending IBM Lotus Symphony to them. It is much more
> accessible

Yes, use the version of the vendor that promised to contribute the
related code that the vendor is using in his product but failed to do
so in the last five years. What great logic.

And whether it is OK to wait or not is out of the question. Facts are
* Oracle decided to grant the code to Apache, not to the TDF
* This decision implies that OOo has to get rid of tons of code that
are incompatible with Apache's licence standards/policies
* This decision implies that OOo has once again move to an "ancient"
version control system, conversion of the history of that repo to a
much more limited version is not trivial and just getting an initial
source to work on already takes months.
(There's not even a bugtracker decision yet, bugzilla or jira is an
open question but it's just progressing way to slowly)
* It will take a while until you can build the first version of Apache-OOo
* It will take much longer until the first end-user ready version of
Apache-OOo will be ready

So I stick with it. I don't expect an end-user-ready version of
Apache-OOo before next summer. Whether that one will include IA2 or
not is entirely open, as nobody did see the IA2 code that is in the
private CWS.

if IA2 will be in Apache-OOo, then very likely it will be available in
an end-user version of LO before the first release of OOo (or at the
same time).
Whether IA2 will be in the code is entirely up to IBM and Oracle. As
it is in a private cws, it is not yet under LGPL, it is unclear
whether it is covered by Oracle's grant (this whole topic is still
very unclear, what is covered, what not).

So as you wrote before: Don't shoot the messenger.

> than LibreOffice or OpenOffice.org (since you question my credibility, don't
> take my word for it, ask blind users!).

Seriously, what's your problem?

I'm repeating myself so often, I just can't explain why you would
think I'm against IA2, or that I would be happy that IA2 is not
included, or that IA2 would not be an improvement.
And regarding credibility - see above. It's not credibility, but
you're habit of avoiding clear statements, and that puts thick fog
around what you know, and what you assume. While you may have been in
close contact with the involved developers, none of that knowledge did
make it into your posting.

> [1] "We do not want to wait, why should we, its been too long already.":
>   <http://www.freelists.org/post/nvda/open-office-accessibility,28>

Rather than suggesting Symphony, suggest switching to linux instead.
By recommending Symphony you're "rewarding" IBM for not contributing.
But entirely your choice.

ciao
Christian

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted