incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Lauder <>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
Date Tue, 19 Jul 2011 06:54:20 GMT
On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 14:18 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Hi Kay,
> I think there is a conflict of expectations and it is something that we need to address.

The makeup of the initial committers is what it is.  Apache standard
procedure was followed.  It is true that it is unlikely that the
original Apache rules ever envisaged a project of the size and
complexity of wishing to become a podling.  As we move
forward we may have to adapt a little to deal with that difficulty, but
right now I think things look good

> The PPMC is not only former/current contributors and we don't all know
each other.  And some of us are acquainted in contexts that have nothing to do with
 (I'm at a forgetful age, but I don't think you or I have had any direct experience of each
other's contributions outside of ooo-dev, for example.)

This is a given, given the vastness of the OOo community, there are very
few, if any at all, that know every contributor to OOo, however I
believe there is sufficient across-the-board representation in the
initial committer group so that collectively we would know the majority
of the long term contributors to OOo 

> In some sense, the most effective way to be seen and known at the PPMC is to contribute
in all of the (hopefully-increasing) ways there are to contribute on ooo-dev.
> Whether we should be fast-tracking notable contributors to in some manner
or whether we should have the Apache meritocracy take over in a strict way is something that
the PPMC has to deal with.  You've hear one mentor assert the second case.  
> The composition of the PPMC is an accident of birth (and timing).  The presumption is
that we will do the right thing in growing this project into a thriving activity that merits
advancement to an Apache Top Level Project (TLP).  That is what the PPMC job is, no matter
what we might have individually expected on arrival.  Community involvement is also a success
> How can we navigate the invitation of further committers in a responsible way?
> What are your and other's further thoughts?

I'm all for inviting people with good history of contribution to the
original OOo to be Committers and/or PPMC members, based on the
experience and knowledge of the people we have in the PPMC at the moment
and of course, given that the invitees are keen to come aboard while
also being cognisant and in favour of the Apache way.  

I have no issue with the methodology in terms of the initial Committers
signup process.  Those of us who were never convinced of the rumours of
OOo's demise kept an ear to the ground and when the announcement was
made we were there, so the makeup of that initial group, I believe, was
no accident.  It is made up of people who were waiting for this, or
something like it, to happen and who then made the effort to find out
how to become involved. 

So my opinion for what it's worth is that perhaps the process was not
entirely fair for the larger original OOo community, but given that this
is an entirely new paradigm for both the old OOo community and Apache
and Apache had processes in place to make a reasonable fist of dealing
with it, then it was fair enough.

It is now up to us in this new PPMC to sort any shortcomings there may
be, either actual or perceived.


>  - Dennis
> It is true that it is a short time from June 1 (announcement of the incubator proposal
and discussions on to June 10 (commencement of the ballot to
accept the proposed incubator project).
> I'm not sure it was a short time for a typical incubator proposal.  The gating factors
seem to be that (1) there was considered to be a sufficient list of Initial Committers and
mentors for starting a podling of the size and ambitions anticipated for, (2)
the proposal had been refined enough, and (3) the discussion on various issues raised by commenters
had died down enough to consider it being time to vote.  The Incubator PMC were the binding
voters in this case.
> The idea of needing to make outreach to some broad community or provide time to engage
that community wasn't a prominent consideration, as I recall.  Because of the
- LibreOffice schism, a number of experienced Apache folks went to TDF lists to inform participants
there and to discuss how Apache operates and what can reasonably be expected.
> I have no knowledge of the communications that happened on lists and forums frequented
by contributors.  A substantial proportion of participants appear
to be among the Initial Committers and there are more, such as yourself, who have become active
on ooo-dev since.
> That's what happened that was visible to me.  (I saw the announcement on June 1 and registered
on the wiki and the incubator list the same day.  My iCLA was sent in two days later and one
week later I received confirmation that it was registered.  It is clearly an accident of timing
that it came to my attention immediately.  That I acted on it was my own sense and excitement
over the opportunity.)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kay Schenk [] 
> <>
> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 12:27
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
> On 07/13/2011 06:37 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> <>
> > Responding as a mentor - not as an OO.o committer...
> [ ... ]
> >> �2. A person is considered eligible to become a committer when there is an
established pattern of contribution on the project:<>.
> >>
> >> �2.1 To what degree should contributions elsewhere -- a prior reputation --
be taken into consideration?
> >> �2.2 For how long should we do this, if at all?
> >
> > Contributions elsewhere do not count. It is contributions here that
> > matter. There was plenty of time during proposal time for past
> > contributors to step up. They did not. Now this is an ASF project
> > everyone needs to earn merit in the ASF project not in what went
> > before.
> One comment on this. I believe MANY past 
> contributors/committers were not even aware of the "proposal time". So, 
> this remark is a bit troubling to me. Really, it is only since well 
> about June 20th that more details of the move to Apache had emerged.
> I don't know how this information was supposedly made known, but, 
> well...a LOT of folks were NOT informed.
> [ ... ]

Graham Lauder, MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ Migration and training Consultant.

View raw message