incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Terry Ellison <Te...@ellisons.org.uk>
Subject Re: Dissatisfaction amongst the community admins, moderators and volunteers
Date Mon, 05 Sep 2011 14:56:44 GMT
There are views of the mentors which we need to weight heavily.  There 
are the views of the PPMC members actually doing the work -- me and the 
5 other PPMC members doing the work -- which as far as I understand also 
carry some weight, and then there are the views of other PPMC 
non-involved members.

As far as I can see the forums can do everything that the ASF, the 
mentors, the people doing the work and the broad consensus of PPMC 
member seem to want.

We have one PPMC non-involved member ranting away on his own agenda, and 
who refuses even to look at or to talk to the people running forums.  As 
there any reason under Apache rules why I shouldn't do anything other 
than ignore this view as an aberrant outrider?

Rob, engage with the people.  Understand what they do.  Read what the 
Mentors have said.  And try to be constructive.  Then perhaps I will 
respond.  In the meantime I will complete this work.

I would really prefer it if you would focus on telling the developers 
how what there policies and guidelines should be for developing code, 
which would be just as relevant here.

Regards Terry

On 05/09/11 14:33, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Daniel Shahaf<d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>  wrote:
>> Rob Weir wrote on Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 13:01:50 -0400:
>>> I think it would be good if they made up their mind soon.  I thought
>>> we were close to the physical migration being completed.  If the
>>> current volunteers are not on board with the Apache project, then
>>> we'll need to explore alternative approaches, such as:
>>>
>>> 1) Point users to http://www.oooforum.org/
>>>
>>> 2) Do support via mailing list only
>>>
>>> 3) Use forums, but find new volunteers
>> 4) Abort the migration, tell the forums guys to find some non-ASF
>> hosting where they can continue running the forums unchanged
>>
> And that would be fine as well.  I think the general error in the way
> we've handled this is we've ignored these issues for too long, plowing
> through on the technical migration, while ignoring the policy issues,
> or even the fundamental question of whether the forums volunteers want
> to work with Apache.
>
> Note of the issues I've raised are new.  I've raised them all before,
> months ago.
>
> For example, I raised many of the project integration with the forum
> admins back in June [1].  I raised the specific issue of the private
> forums over a month ago [2], as well as branding [3].  One Apache
> Member seemed to confirm that this was a problem at the time [3].   I
> also received an off-line note from another thanking me for raising
> these issues.
>
> So none of this is really new.  These issues have been known, but
> sadly ignored, for months.  Whenever these issues were raised, the
> response has always been, "We'll deal with these issues later" or "I'm
> only concerned with the migration of the servers".  Well, later is
> now.
>
> Although some have portrayed my -1 as coming out of nowhere, this
> opposition should not be a surprise to anyone who has been paying
> attention.  If legitimate issues are raised and then ignored, then
> that is what you will get if you try to just plow ahead.
>
> If we had to do this all over again, I think the better approach would
> have been:
>
> 1) Don't start with the server migration for the forums.  Don't be so
> presumptuous.
>
> 2) Invite the existing forum volunteers to make a proposal on ooo-dev,
> for what they would like to do with the forums, if anything
>
> 3) The proposal should have been discussed and either lazy consensus
> sought or if necessary a vote taken.  Most likely the proposal would
> have required changes to conform with Apache expectations.
>
> 4) Only after there is an acceptable proposal start the migration
>
> The fundamental error we've made is to start the migration before
> addressing objections related to process.
>
> In fact we should probably pause on further migration until we resolve
> these issues.   I don't support the view that we'll defer this until
> graduation.  We might defer implementation until some later date,
> certainly.  But I need to see a proposal from the forum volunteers on
> what they want to do.  This needs to come from them, and be backed by
> their consensus.  If they are willing to fully integrate into the
> Apache project, then that has my 100% support, even if implementing
> this integration takes more time.  But if they do not have that
> consensus then I would not support the physical integration of the
> forums in the uncertain hope that at some future date they *might*
> wish to integrate into the project.  The time to decide this question
> is now.  And it is their choice.   The ball is in their court.
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/jin4cg63sb6rp6xs
> [2] http://markmail.org/message/qbusd2a4sbsfzciu
> [3] http://markmail.org/thread/x2ezj4bwy2juorl3
>


Mime
View raw message