incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Grobmeier <>
Subject Re: [RT] Create a second incubator podling - the ooo forums
Date Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:56:37 GMT

not commenting all of your e-mail, you speak out what I have observed.

I now heard very often "there is no rush" in this discussion but
actually there is rush. As you said:

> The second is that the Forum operators may be losing faith in Apache.  Yesterday, it
seemed that they were eager to adjust their way of operating to accommodate the basic requirements,
especially the relaxed case that you have described as sufficient for going ahead.

We now need to come up with a written (!) proposal immediately and
discuss it with the forum maintainers. A wiki is a good place. Once we
have agreed, we need to vote on both mediums - mailinglist and forum.
The latter one because this is what they have used before.

I have also not only seen that forum operators loose faith - some
ooo-dev people have no faith in the forum people too. I have read
statements like "we are not going to give access to all those people
at once" etc (from mind). This is why I brought in the idea of a
second project.

We need to show good behavior, respect and need to come up with a good
propsal as said - otherwise we'll loose one of the most valuable part
of this project.


>  Also, much to my surprise when I was allowed in as a "Volunteer" so I could observe
and participate on those forums (but not break anything), I discovered that there are a number
of Apache OOo PPMC Committers, including Terry Ellison, already serving in various senior
capacities in that group.  I learned last night that the same is true for the Japanese Language
forums.  I find that aspect of this situation quite baffling.
> I am disappointed by one situation observed in the past few hours.  A vote to switch
the site governance sub-forum to public (perhaps read-only) is failing at the moment. One
comment by a recent "no" voter was not against the ballot proposition itself but against the
perceived treatment by Apache.
> Another vote, "Do you broadly support permitting Apache members read access to our work
and discussions" involving creation of a special oversight role  was passing overwhelmingly
(not one single "no" so far).  That had been initiated by Terry Ellison on Monday.  Balloting
ends on Thursday.
> In all other threads that I could read, there was more excitement and action toward finding
an accommodation with Apache requirements.  I am hopeful that can be sustained.  I will
continue to watch as long as I am welcome there.
>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Schaefer []
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 06:14
> To:
> Subject: Re: [RT] Create a second incubator podling - the ooo forums
> Up until a few days ago I thought we had one.
> Move the forums over to the ASF, give the PPMC
> and ASF members the full ability (upon request)
> to oversee allcommunications within the forums,
> and life goeson.  I see no need for the Volunteers
> to join the PPMC or anything like that, just keep
> doing whatever you're doing and keep the PPMC abreast
> of anything report-worthy when they need to report
> to the board.  If the Volunteers want to incorporate
> some Apache-style voting processes into their ops,
> go for it!
>>From: Rory O'Farrell <>
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 9:08 AM
>>Subject: Re: [RT] Create a second incubator podling - the ooo forums
>>On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 05:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
>>Joe Schaefer <> wrote:
>>> So to answer your questions, yes it certainly could be done
>>> within the Apache structure.  No it probably cannot be done
>>> to host stuff here on behalf of some third party.
>>Thanks, that is helpful in clarifying options.
>>So to be hosted on Apache one would need to find some mechanism whereby a forum would
fit into Apache; by your earlier post you do not think there is such a mechanism. Might Apache
be prepared to modify (by extension) their structures to accomodate these?  This becomes
a problem for the legal draughtsmen, of course.  The old rule of £minimal change" ought
>>I'm not asking for a change, just exploring the possibility of one.
>>Rory O'Farrell <>


View raw message