You are new to Apache yourself. I'll thank you not to patronise an audience not known for being ill-informed, especially given that contributors and mentors alike have expressed concerns (or indeed resigned from the project) on the grounds of your behaviour.
> First, the Apache ICLA is not a copyright assignment like the old Sun CLA was. The "C" stands for Contributor, not Copyright, and if you read the document you see that it says nothing at all about copyright assignment:
The difference is academic. In either case IBM is free to use the code in question for any purpose it wishes, proprietary or not, with very little restriction. The only way in which assignment differs to restriction-free licensing here is the entirely theoretical one where someone may be sued for distribution code one wrote onesself: at present this is irrelevant.
> Second, the Apache ICLA is not required in order to contribute code to an Apache project. Yes, it must be contributed under the Apache license, but there is more than one way to do this. Apache projects regularly accept patches from contributors on the mailing list or via Bugzilla, without an ICLA.
A red herring. The Apache mentor in the directly referenced post specifically stated that a request to ensure that a given set of CWSes would not be acted upon except in the case of charity unless it came from a signed-up member of the project.
> Third, the Apache OpenOffice already has active members of LibreOffice. Several have even been elected as Committers in the project. So if I or anyone else wanted to make a big deal of this, we would have done so already.
An overlap in the communities does not prove that the communities are in agreement. Plainly some significant contributors of LibreOffice code feel that the present situation may make it impossible to successfully rebase LibreOffice on the Oracle code dump. That others have failed to register such concerns does not mean that they do not exist.
> 4th, only individuals can join an Apache project, not corporations or foundations. So it does not make sense to talk of LO/TDF joining Apache. But as mentioned above, there are already individuals who are happy to contribute to both projects.
Nevertheless, your own reply suggests that any broad move towards such would be framed by at least some AOO "Committers" in terms of "even some TDF members have joined the Apache effort". Given the old OOo's dominance in mindshare in the wider world, this is hardly healthy.
> 5th, The recent increase in Chinese developers on the list is not from IBM, but from another company, Chinese Standard Software Corporation, in Beijing. These are the engineers from the former RedFlag/RedOffice, who have a lot of experience with this code base. So it is great to see them join.
A significant proportion of these developers identify as being part of the Lotus Symphony development team. If a majority of these developers are indeed from other vendors then I have not seen evidence to that effect.
> 6th, The IBM contribution of Symphony is ready to go once Apache OpenOffice 3.4 is released. We're talking a week or two at this point.
IAccessible2 has been promised for five years. Promise of code is not code, no matter what the time frame.