incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Teams and Leads (was: Proposed short term goals)
Date Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:41:43 GMT
> I read, there is no single vision on how PMCs should run a project and
> the communities they host. So I think the OpenOffice.org community can
> create or better bring in its own customary constitution even it's
> hosted by Apache.
>
> OpenOffice.org is a little bit different from other Apache projects.
> That makes sense to gover it in a different way.

I agree that OOo might need some other things as other projects. I
also agree with the freedom a PMC has inside the ASF.

But before rules are established: the ASF is a meritocracy.

The voice of a - lets say "responsible" - for a specific task is not
more worth than the voice of every other PMC at the project. As long
as this is respected I think it is OK to go. In fact, I also think
there will be (and must be) some specific roles in OOo such as
"translators", "end user managers" along to "dev", or "PMC".

On the leading, I believe a leader will "grow" out of the masses and
"lead" as long as he does it. There is no need to name somebody imho -
they are acting as leaders and respected or not. In many cases there
are many leaders. If you want to name "responsibles", then you can
name a set of people who are committing to the specific part of the
project.

For example: http://commons.apache.org/compress/team-list.html
The commons project is made out of tons of people. For this specific
component only a few of them care. We have named them, just in case.
But everybody at commons has the same rights on the component as the
named people have. everybody can veto against decision.

I think there is need to name "workforces" like "translators". They
are - imho - pretty similar to components in commons. A workforce does
its work on a specific mailinglist. So, translators should have their
own mailinglist were they are not bothered with technical details.

What Greg wanted to express (or what I think he wanted to express) is,
that every committer in every "workforce" can vote and raise his voice
in the matters of the other workforce. This not really likely to
happen but might. For example, a dev guy can vote against a decision
in the translator workforce. On the other hand, every PMC working
mainly on the "translator" list might veto against a technical
decision.

Mime
View raw message