incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Proposal: Forum integration
Date Tue, 06 Sep 2011 20:27:56 GMT
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<> wrote:
> With a special exception for anyone who has server and configuration access, all that's
required of *us* (the PPMC and ASF) with regard to the operation of the Forums is oversight.
 I repeat my suggestion to have that be sufficient for now.
> With experience and mutual exposure while in incubation, more can be done as more is
understood and what is simple is kept simple in operation of the forums.
> I tire of hypotheticals having nothing to do with the concrete situation of the forums.

This isn't hypothetical.  In your own words they are proposing a set
of access controls for their volunteers that are assigned rights that
are not available to all project committers, and are not reviewed or
approved by the PPMC.  That sounds like they are running their own
project within the project with the own meritocracy, their own PPMC
and their own allocations of karma.

I look forwarding to seeing the real proposal in writing at some
point, but it sounds like we were closer off a few hours ago then we
are now.

> Let's start with the least that can possibly work and fix it only when experience shows
there is need for greater ceremony.
>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir []
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 13:09
> To:
> Subject: Re: Proposal: Forum integration
> This is not just about oversight.
> For example, what if we had a policy that said:
> 1) The public cannot see the Calc source code
> 2) Calc developers can read and write the Calc source code
> 3) But we'll create a special role so PPMC members and ASF Members can
> also see the source code
> Would that fly?  What if we did that to a mailing list, a wiki, an
> issue tracker or any other project resource?
> (Ignoring for the fact that what is being proposed does not prevent
> the creation of an additional, 4th private forum that PPMC members/ASF
> Members could not see).
> -Rob
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <> wrote:
>> The proposed new role that is being considered as available to any Apache OOo PPMC
Member or Apache Foundation Member is a modification of the Volunteer role.  (Yes there are
more flavors above that.)
>>  General User access, the same as any user
>>  Read access to the 3 "private" forums that are in the Admin Forums cluster
>>  Write access to the Site-Governance forum
>> The last two don't happen with ordinary users.
>> Of course registration for the forum is required and they'd have to know who is coming
from here.  Any of our PPMC members over there could carry that message.
>> There is talk about making other things visible, such as logs (which are extensive).
>> This strikes me as sufficient for oversight, at least on entry into the incubator
with us.  There are more details, and Apache Infra has strong requirements for anyone who
will be working at the server level.
>>  - Dennis
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob Weir []
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 12:12
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Proposal: Forum integration
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Rory O'Farrell <> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:51:36 -0400
>>> Rob Weir <> wrote:
>>>> If anyone can explain better "Volunteers", that would be great.  Do
>>>> they have any extra rights?  Or is it just the case that some of what
>>>> Apache would call "contributors" are given the title "Volunteer" while
>>>> other, perhaps less active contributors are not given that title?
>>> Volunteers get a different colour code on the Forum User Name and a tag saying
that they are Volunteers.  In addition, they get read only access to the Delete thread so
they can monitor what is being held in the three day delete period, and read/write access
to the Forum issues and Governance threads so that they can raise questions which are visible
to the other Volunteers/Mods etc.  Because they have reached a "trusted" status, their opinions
may receive more weight with other Volunteers/Mods than those of the random User.
>> In your experience is it necessary to provide this title and reward in
>> order to retain these volunteers?  I mean, beside whatever
>> satisfaction they get from answering user questions (which I assume is
>> the primary reason they are there)?
>> The more typical thing at Apache is for anyone to be able to read and
>> comment things akin to "Forum issues and Governance threads".  Anyone
>> off the street can come in and comment on anything we do on the list.
>> They can even send notes to our private list.  I know this is not the
>> only way in the world such things can work, but it is the norm here.
>> Maybe to motivate it, consider this.  If someone is not a volunteer,
>> but is one quantum of merit less than that needed to be a "Volunteer",
>> and an important governance issue comes up, does it really make sense
>> for their views not to be heard?  Are they really not trusted at 999
>> responses but magically become trusted at 1000?  Or, in the real
>> world, do you have new people with great insight, and old people with
>> bad habits, and every mix in between?  I'd urge opening up and letting
>> any registered user comment on governance issues.  Toss out spammers,
>> yes.  Toss out off thread conversations, absolutely.  Fling the
>> flames, please.  Ban the repeat offenders, absolutely.  But consider
>> that good ideas and good advice can come from anywhere, often from
>> where you least expect it.
>> -Rob
>>> --
>>> Rory O'Farrell <>

View raw message