incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: An invitation to committers to the OOo Community Forums
Date Mon, 05 Sep 2011 00:29:27 GMT
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> All of this mention and talking about moderators has raised a puzzle in my mind.
>
> We have moderation on all of our lists.  What is the oversight on moderator actions?
>

Hi Dennis,

I think you are confusing this.  This is not about moderation.  No one
has suggested that moderation discussions should not be private.

The point is that there is absolutely no public forum in which the
forum volunteers discuss the operation of the forums.  This is not a
matter of 95% of the time they discuss in public and then 5% of the
time they accidentally have a private discussion that could/should
have been public.  The problem is that 100% of their discussions are
in private, whether related to moderation, forum operations, evolution
of forum strategy, whatever.  100%.  All of it. They are even
discussing this very topic and voting on it in private.  It is that
lack of attention to transparency that is incompatible with an Apache
project.

Think of it this way, if we had a ooo-support.i.a.o list, would it be
even remotely reasonable that we would support an ooo-support-private
list where 100% of the discussions and votes related to forum
operations took place, even if they were not related to a particular
moderation issue?  I don't think so.

Your repeated arguments against 100% public is a red herring.  I'm not
arguing for 100% public.  But we need to do far far better than 100%
private.

-Rob

>  - Dennis
>
> PS: Hypothetical slippery-slope arguments don't work.  It is mutual in all of those
categories what conditions we place on contributions and whether the contributor accepts them.
 We could let the OpenOffice.org forums go fish (actually, we can't stop them).  But is
it in the Apache OOo Podling's collective interest for that to happen?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 10:38
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: An invitation to committers to the OOo Community Forums
>
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Terry Ellison <Terry@ellisons.org.uk> wrote:
> [ ... ]
>
>> -0.75  yes we should put this to the community, but this is not how they
>> operate today.  I do know that the majority of the "big hitters" are really
>> unhappy with this.  Please realise that if you force this one, you will
>> probably have a very obedient forum, but one with nobody answering any Qs --
>> or some revolt where they take their service en-mass elsewhere.
>>
>
> You can see what would if support volunteers demand to work the way
> they have always worked, not integrating into the Apache project, and
> if translators demanded the same, and then technical writers demanded
> the same?  What then?  Developers demanding to work in Mercurial under
> LGPL?
>
> In any case, could you maybe float a counter proposal?  Something
> --anything -- that acknowledges that transparency is important,
> something that makes some effort to meet us half way?  Something more
> than your current proposal which appears to be "Thanks for the
> hardware, Apache.  Now leave us alone".
>
>> Policy discussions are one matter, but moderation must be the business of
>> the moderators.  They have made it quite clear in the past that they really
>> don't want to have these discussions in public view.  Again we can only
>> sound them out.
>>
>
> The proposal I made had moderation decisions -- the truly confidential
> parts -- be done in a private forum echoed to ooo-private.  So it
> would not be in public view.  See above, #3, in case you missed it.
>
> -Rob
>
>

Mime
View raw message