incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
Date Wed, 07 Sep 2011 04:15:35 GMT
It's like talking to a wall with you.

If I say that as an ooo mentor and Apache
sysadmin I have no issues with bringing
on the forums immediately and settling 

the ownership question down the road, that
doesn'tmean I'm asking you to continue to
applyyour owninterpretation of what it all
means and to insist that no, nothing will in
factbe done unless Rob has personally sniffed
everyone's underwear and found it to be
free from undue smell.

As I said I'm tired of being undercut here,
and have precious few reasons to remain a mentor
on this project if things don't change in the
near future.

>From: Rob Weir <>
>Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2011 12:02 AM
>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Joe Schaefer <> wrote:
>> 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.
>Drew wrote:
>"First - the current owners of the User Community
>Forums, the instance of the phpBB softwaree and the content within the
>attached database is owned by the group of individuals known as the
>Volunteer Group within the forum"
>So the claim is not "ownership" of the forums in some stewardship
>sense.  This is specifically a claim of ownership of the content.
>IANAL, but I don't think we should dismiss that claim too hastily.
>Even out of respect for their emotions, it would be unwise to just
>move forward without their explicit permission.
>> And no it's not aggressive, it's what they *want*.
>Drew said it was his "personal wish" that the forums would be
>transferred to Apache, but he also wrote:
>"Fourth - The owners of the User Community Forums have
>an explicit right to relocate the services provided at
>, along with all content generated by the
>site, to a new location solely at the discretion of the Volunteer
>He also says that the Volunteer Group "currently consists of 75
>individuals".  So we have one volunteer's "personal wish" and a claim
>of content ownership by 75 volunteers.
>Of course, there was intent to move to Apache expressed by some of the
>other admins on the list, as well but we never heard from anywhere
>close to 75 volunteers.  And then there was that note, which I don't
>think we should just ignore.  I hope it is not considered too
>aggressive to actually listen to the forum volunteers when they say
>something as carefully as they did in that note.
>> Nobody's under any illusions that their current
>> "ownership" of the forums will be maintained going
>> forward.
>I think the forum volunteers, as a group, need to come to an
>understanding among themselves as to what they want.  Ideally they
>would put that in the form of a proposal that we (PPMC) can discuss
>and approve.  I think we can have a reasonable discussion on that
>which respects the prerogatives they have based on their claims of
>ownership and their collective priorities, and which also respects the
>PPMC's prerogatives based on our collective priorities and
>responsibilities.  I'm not quite sure what "ownership" in quotes
>means, so I wont' speculate specifically on a nebulous term.  My main
>point is their claim of ownership was not in quotes and was not
>>>From: Rob Weir <>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 11:29 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
>>>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Joe Schaefer <> 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
>>>and that they owned the content. That was what they posted to the list
>>>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.
>>>>>From: Rob Weir <>
>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 10:52 PM
>>>>>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
>>>>>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Joe Schaefer <>
>>>>>> 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. 
>>>>>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.
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message