incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
Date Wed, 07 Sep 2011 03:29:47 GMT
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 <> wrote:
>>> 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.  I
>>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.

View raw message