incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Dissatisfaction amongst the community admins, moderators and volunteers
Date Mon, 05 Sep 2011 00:21:04 GMT
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<> wrote:
> I don't know that *anyone* has actually invited them.  They have been told what the
changes are, as in mailing list messages and the sudden transfer of Bugzilla.

Actually, there were offline discussions between me and the forum
admins back in June.  They approached me, asking how to be part of the
Apache project.  I invited them to join.  We had a thread where I
explained how Apache projects worked.  Every single one of the Forum
guys who are now claiming offense were on that thread.

I wrote to them a that time, in response to their inquiry on joining Apache:


Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:27 PM
Subject	Re: users forum present and future


I'm not yet an expert in how Apache works, but I tink there needs to
be some chain of responsibility from the moderators to the Apache
Software Foundation Board, if this is going to be hosted on Apache
hardware, at an Apache-owned domain.  This is necessary to ensure that
Apache can ensure that the web site conforms to various national laws,
from privacy policy, to responding to copyright take-down notices (in
the US), to responding to requests from law enforcement, to give the
moderators a way to escalate any difficulties, etc.  Obviously these
are very very rare, and may never occur, but my guess is Apache will
want to ensure that they have control from the Board.

Does that make sense?  If you want to use Apache infrastructure then
you need to become part of the project's meritocracy


We'll want to map out how your existing roles fit into the Apache roles:

PMC Member  == controls the project, approves releases, nominates
committers, etc.

Committers == members who have made sustained contributions to the project.

Developers == those who contribute to the project

Users == those who use the product

See here for more details:

The Apache Board appoints the Chair of a project's Project Management
Committee (or PMC).  The Chair is an Apache Vice President and is
responsible to the Board.  The committers in the project elect their
PMC members.  The PMC does the main planning for the project.  The
existing committers elect new committers from developers on the
project who have done consistently good work.  This includes coders,
but also contributors in other ways, such as forum admins.

So I think this works best if all forum moderators are also
"developers" or maybe "committters"  The admin role could also be a
"committer".  And someone who wants to take responsibility for the
overall user forums, from a planning perspective, and maybe associated
pieces like the wiki and the mailing lists, should probably be a PMC

Initially, we would just accept the current status quo (assuming that
is working well) and propose the existing moderators and admins.  But
in the future, as vacancies occur, I'd expect that we'd fill them per
Apache process, e.g., someone is nominated on the Apache project list
and we vote.   But this all starts with figuring out how your roles
fit into an Apache style meritocracy.

Would something like the above be a problem?  All OOo volunteers will
be going through a similar process, of mapping their roles into the
Apache system.  This is very easy for programmers and testers and
documentation writers, since all projects have those roles.  But with
user forum admins, I think this is something new for Apache.



The response I received at that time was positive, a stated intent to
work within the ASF meritocracy.  I have no idea why they are
backtracking now on that.

> I'm not sure that they know they can decline our offer, also.  That probably looks suicidal.
 I don't believe we do have the right to the forums if they do not consent.  Unfortunately,
we haven't approached them as folks who have a say in the matter and that we want to be welcome.

Consent?  We have just as much rights to the forums as we have the the
wikis or the mailing list archives.  It is not an exclusive right, but
certainly we have what is needed to host the forums.  If a particular
author objects, we could remove their content if we wanted to.  But
that is true regardless of whether the existing forum volunteers come
to Apache.  In other words, even if they do come to Apache, someone
could object to their content being hosted and we would probably take
it down.


>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Shahaf []
> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 10:15
> To: Terry Ellison
> Cc:; Rob Weir
> Subject: Re: Dissatisfaction amongst the community admins, moderators and volunteers
> Terry Ellison wrote on Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 18:09:15 +0100:
>> On 04/09/11 16:49, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >... we are not discussing project operations on ooo-private.  We
>> >use that list for voting in new committers and for exchanging
>> >confidential information, like the real email addresses of new
>> >committers.  Almost any other attempted use of ooo-private has been
>> >quickly shut down my our Mentors, rightfully, since the default
>> >behavior should be to discuss things openly.  In fact, if the very
>> >discussion that is currently occurring (according to Terry) on the
>> >private forum had occurred on ooo-private, we would have received a
>> >lecture from a Mentor on the need for transparency.
>> Rob we are not talking about project operations in private in
>> u.s.oo.o either.  We are talking about User Community business in
>> private on a User Community-run server.  I know that you want to
>> unilaterally subsume this community into the project, but this isn't
>> the status quo.  It's a fundamental change that you are demanding of
>> this community.
> If the forums community doesn't want to become part of the ASF project
> then why has the PPMC asked infra to migrate the forums to ASF hardware?
> (Terry, in case it's not clear, I'm speaking with Devil's Advocate hat on.)

View raw message