incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
Date Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:42:39 GMT
Dennis -- see below

On 07/17/2011 02:18 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Hi Kay,
> I think there is a conflict of expectations and it is something that
> we need to address.
> 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.)
> 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.

yes, I see this...

> 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 factor.
> How can we navigate the invitation of further committers in a
> responsible way?

Well I DID in fact contact kenai -- though given the state of that 
project -- I don't know if I'll hear back. I asked them to send me a 
list of all members in projects long with their roles. I would think the 
new Apache venture should at least be interested in folks who are 
considered -- project admins on that side, and/or content/software 
developers. These are the people that would historically be considered 
"committers".  I would think that some effort should be made to contact 
these folks and ascertain future interest in participation and how.
Now there is info on the main site but there might also 
be lots of confusion.

Anyway, if I don't hear back from kenai soonish (and I will be out of 
touch mostly with family for about a week), I will try to pull this info 
myself. My fear at this point, as I've already expressed, is that a very 
large number of folks who were very actively involved becasue of the 
inherent set-up in the "old" way are likely feeling quite lost at this 
point. I don't mean to sound negative but, well, that's just what 
happens when thing underlying architecture and governance is SO changed.

> What are your and other's further thoughts?
> - 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.

Uh well...this was nice but I'm wondering why the same wasn't done on 
the openoffice lists, like maybe "announcements" ?????

> 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.

Right--I see that. From the participants, it seems many on the developer 
lists were contacted, and maybe some project heads, but....

> 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.)

Well I saw this too but, kept waiting for something to come down in the 
"usual" way, vis a vis an announcement list, etc. Oh well...we each have 
our own ways of doing things I guess.

> -----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.
> [ ... ]


"An old horse for a long hard road, a young pony for a quick ride".
                                   -- Unknown

View raw message