From ooo-dev-return-5007-apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Mon Sep 5 00:29:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 514DC7D0F for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 00:29:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 1584 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2011 00:29:31 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 1317 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2011 00:29:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 1309 invoked by uid 99); 5 Sep 2011 00:29:29 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 00:29:29 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-ey0-f173.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username robweir, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Sep 2011 00:29:29 +0000 Received: by eyb7 with SMTP id 7so3367608eyb.18 for ; Sun, 04 Sep 2011 17:29:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.17.209 with SMTP id j57mr946028eej.93.1315182567563; Sun, 04 Sep 2011 17:29:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.188.15 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Sep 2011 17:29:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <010f01cc6b5a$6fc10090$4f4301b0$@acm.org> References: <010f01cc6b5a$6fc10090$4f4301b0$@acm.org> Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 20:29:27 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: An invitation to committers to the OOo Community Forums From: Rob Weir To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > All of this mention and talking about moderators has raised a puzzle in m= y mind. > > We have moderation on all of our lists. =C2=A0What is the oversight on mo= derator 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 > =C2=A0- Dennis > > PS: Hypothetical slippery-slope arguments don't work. =C2=A0It is mutual = in all of those categories what conditions we place on contributions and wh= ether the contributor accepts them. =C2=A0We could let the OpenOffice.org f= orums go fish (actually, we can't stop them). =C2=A0But 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 wro= te: > [ ... ] > >> -0.75 =C2=A0yes we should put this to the community, but this is not how= they >> operate today. =C2=A0I do know that the majority of the "big hitters" ar= e really >> unhappy with this. =C2=A0Please realise that if you force this one, you = will >> probably have a very obedient forum, but one with nobody answering any Q= s -- >> 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? =C2=A0What then? =C2=A0Developers demanding to work in Mercuria= l under > LGPL? > > In any case, could you maybe float a counter proposal? =C2=A0Something > --anything -- that acknowledges that transparency is important, > something that makes some effort to meet us half way? =C2=A0Something mor= e > than your current proposal which appears to be "Thanks for the > hardware, Apache. =C2=A0Now leave us alone". > >> Policy discussions are one matter, but moderation must be the business o= f >> the moderators. =C2=A0They have made it quite clear in the past that the= y really >> don't want to have these discussions in public view. =C2=A0Again 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. =C2=A0So it > would not be in public view. =C2=A0See above, #3, in case you missed it. > > -Rob > >