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: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
Date Wed, 07 Sep 2011 03:29:47 GMT
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> 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 OpenOffice.org
and that they owned the content. That was what they posted to the list
[1].

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.

-Rob

[1] http://markmail.org/message/zozbslbelnjlqrlh


>
>
>
>>________________________________
>>From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
>>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 10:52 PM
>>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
>>
>>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> 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.
>>
>>-Rob
>>
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message