incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
Date Wed, 07 Sep 2011 03:40:16 GMT
Yes frankly I consider that a minor bump
along the way.  As drew pointed out the
Volunteers wish to transfer their "ownership"
of the forums to the ASF.  I see no reason
to gate host migration on that "transfer" being
carried out in advance.  I haven't seen any
actual contracts (or confirmation by Oracle people)
so I use quotes aroundthese items, but have no
reason to doubttheir accuracy at this point.


And no it's not aggressive, it's what they *want*.

Nobody's under any illusions that their current
"ownership" of the forums will be maintained going
forward.





>________________________________
>From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 11:29 PM
>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
>
>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Not everything people do needs to be scrutinized
>> to each PPMC member's satisfaction.  If you do that
>> without any concern for people's emotions you will
>> wind up with more outcomes like this one.  Some
>> things are better left up to people with enough
>> experience and expertise that minor organizational
>> problems can be "finessed" effectively without
>> major turmoil ensuing.  Part of why I offered
>> to mentor this project was to apply some of that
>> expertise here, but I feel so far my time has largely
>> been a wasted effort and am considering tossing
>> in the towel myself as a result.
>>
>
>The forum volunteers came out, declared that they had always been
>independent of the OpenOffice project, that they had a separate
>contractual agreement with Oracle to host the forums at OpenOffice.org
>and that they owned the content. That was what they posted to the list
>[1].
>
>Do you really think at that point, after receiving that note, it would
>be prudent to just move ahead with the migration?   Is this really a
>"minor organizational problem"?  Their note looks more like a red
>light than a green light to me.
>
>Right now, it looks like we're waiting for the forum volunteers
>discuss among themselves and come back with a proposal.  Do you, are
>anyone else, have a counter proposal for what we should be doing?
>Personally  I don't think their note really gives us much freedom of
>action.  If we move forward with migration that would be quite
>aggressive at this point, after their claim of ownership.
>
>-Rob
>
>[1] http://markmail.org/message/zozbslbelnjlqrlh
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>________________________________
>>>From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
>>>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 10:52 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
>>>
>>>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Look Simon, while I obviously don't have the time nor
>>>> the inclination to comment on every suggestion made on
>>>> this list, all I've *ever* expected us to do with the
>>>> forums is to just start hosting it on ASF gear.  The
>>>> only modifications infra wanted were with respect to
>>>> bringing the codebase up to the latest available
>>>> version(s).
>>>>
>>>> Frontloading this effort with a bunch of social and technical
>>>> red tape servesneither the ASF nor the goals of the Apache
>>>> Way, whichis supposed to involve gradual, evolutionary changes
>>>> toboth communities and to code.  Revolutions are not called
>>>> for at this particular juncture; it's hard enough work
>>>> to just move things over (both code-wise and community-wise)
>>>> largely unchanged.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Joe, no one is asking for a revolution.  In fact I'm suggesting that
>>>the forum volunteers taking their time and think this through
>>>carefully before deciding.  Others were urging swift action, that the
>>>forums should be quickly integrated without any discussions at all.  I
>>>think that is the more revolutionary approach, bypassing PPMC
>>>discussion and consensus building.
>>>
>>>If we saw eye to eye on the broad strokes of collaboration but
>>>differed in the fine details, then I could see letting that work
>>>itself out as the Podling worked toward graduation.  But clearly the
>>>gulf of expectations was too large in this case.  We'll be close
>>>enough when we are confident that the details can work themselves out
>>>on the path to graduation.  I think we're getting closer.  You might
>>>think we're already there, or we're always been there.  That's your
>>>opinion.  Others may share it as well.  But if everyone but me thought
>>>that then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?  Elephants
>>>aside, I may be the most obnoxious person speaking these views, but
>>>I'm far from the only one that thinks working out a common
>>>understanding now makes sense.
>>>
>>>-Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message