Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of dennis.hamilton@acm.org
 designates 75.98.160.130 as permitted sender)
Reply-To: <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
To: <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
References: <012101cc40d2$839176c0$8ab46440$@apache.org>
	<-5713634008143311942@unknownmsgid>
	<017e01cc40e4$8a9df2b0$9fd9d810$@apache.org>
	<CAKQbXgB83DOs1nqtxH79L2QcH3nw0vpxOahn1D9oGHcN2vw4kA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E23377B.1040709@gmail.com>
 <CAKQbXgC21vAAiGPfvTOi-bJp-tMPz8tG7kSoEuPgECDtArdcOw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKQbXgC21vAAiGPfvTOi-bJp-tMPz8tG7kSoEuPgECDtArdcOw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 08:22:16 -0700
Organization: NuovoDoc
Message-ID: <005801cc455e$7b1ea4f0$715beed0$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: 
 AQLLnByWobrz9qeSU8sbhQPl8/sR8QFjbEK3ApuJSswBS2KPcQLcDt0jAVZ8uQ2Sp5VM8A==
Content-Language: en-us

Just to be clear: The time in proposal was 10 days, from June 1 to June =
10.  "Weeks" is a stretch.

I don't think this matters.  I don't think the duration before the =
proposal was voted on was determined by any notion of some community =
having time to notice and the participants time to arrive and =
participate.  The threshold was simpler than that, as far as I can tell, =
and perhaps more driven by some urgency to have acceptance of the =
incubator project be resolved.  I know that was on my mind.

It happens that the Initial Committers are a self-selected group whose =
only qualification is (1) editing an entry on a wiki page and (2) doing =
what it takes to show up. It's an arbitrary solution to the =
bootstrapping of a podling.

The other arbitrary part is that, immediately and thereafter, all =
further committer invitations be based on visible contribution at the =
podling.

If those are the rules, they are the rules, as in any game.  There are =
folks who find them unreasonable. =20

We should acknowledge that objection even though the PPMC is expected to =
be unswerving in its adherence to policies. =20

So, are we to make it clear that this is how the Apache Podling =
bootstrap game is played and there is no point in arguing with the =
umpire about what the rules of play are?

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgardler@opendirective.com]=20
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 03:37
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains

On 17 July 2011 20:26, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/13/2011 06:37 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:

...

>> 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 OpenOffice.org
> 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.

It's reasonable to assume that anyone active in the OOo project should
have been monitoring OOo lists and discussions. It's not like there
wasn't a whole media storm about the proposal. If someone did not turn
up during the proposal phase, read the proposal and see the invite to
add themselves then it is reasonable to assume that they may no longer
be significantly active. The process took weeks.

[ ... ]