incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Migrating forums: JFDI (was: Forums down: SQL Error: Too many connections [1040])
Date Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:36:26 GMT
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Shane Curcuru <> wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 6:28 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:16 PM, MiguelAngel<>
>>  wrote:
>>> El 17/10/11 23:09, Rob Weir escribió:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>>> <>  wrote:
>>>>> Rob,
>>>>> There was an update to the Forums Proposal based on some of the
>>>>> comments.  The
>>>>> message about that is
>>>>> <>:
>>>>>   I mentioned
>>>>>     1. Changing "sign the ICLA" to "become a committer" in part C.
>>>>>     2. dropping "ASF" from part H.
>>>>>   on the forum and got a couple of positive responses and no
>>>>> objections,
>>>>>   so I made the change on the wiki.
>>>> OK.  If there are no objections in the forum, and no objections
>>>> expressed on the list, then why the hell are we voting?   IMHO, JFDI.
>>>>  Welcome aboard, Forum Volunteers!
>>>> -Rob
>>> Hi Rob,
>>> Forgive me, but my understanding of English is not very good, only a
>>> forums volunteer.
>>> Please could you explain in a more understandable words?.
>>> I would like interpret right what you have writen.
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>> -Miguel Ángel.
>> Sure.  In an Apache project, there are only a few situations were we
>> require a vote.  One is to approve new committers or PMC members.
>> Another is to approve a release.  For other decisions we operate by
>> "lazy consensus".  This means that if there are no objections to a
>> proposal, then the person who makes the proposal can go forward and
>> implement it.  No vote is required.
>> I'd prefer that we do not have an unnecessary vote when there is a
>> clear consensus to go forward with the forums.  Having unnecessary
>> votes might suggest that in the future other decisions might be
>> deficient if they do not also have unnecessary votes.  I don't want to
>> set that expectation.  I don't want us to make the decision making
>> process in the project less efficient.
> Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about the precedent of having
> unnecessary votes.  While Apache projects are encouraged to have clear rules
> for decision making (so it's easy for newcomers to understand), it's also
> expected that as a project evolves it's community, it may choose - through
> clear discussions - to change it's rules.  But I digress.

Proposals are typically about one or more volunteers stating what they
want to do.  If there are no technical objections, then we let them do
it.  It is about the do-ocracy.

Votes are typically about advancing the status of something in a
process or workflow.  We change the status of contributor by voting to
make them a committer.  We change the status of a build by voting to
make it a release.  The IPMC changes the status of an incubation
proposal to make it a Podling.

The problem with a vote in this instance is that the forum proposal is
a proposal for what the forum volunteers want to do. It is mainly
about what they want to do.  It was reviewed and there were no
objections.   We don't need to vote to allow committers to implement a
proposal in other circumstances.  I don't think we want to start
adding that requirement here.

>> JFDI mean "Just F***n'  Do It".  In other words, once it is clear that
>> there are no objections, then stop talking about, just do it.  The
>> idea is to eliminate needless discussion on the list.  There are many
>> other things we need to discuss  and resolve.  We should take the
>> proposals that we agree on off the list and start implementing them.
> I think we need someone to actually lead this migration process.  I'd
> suggest that they indeed just start doing it - and keeping the list apprised
> of what they plan to do for each step.  A leader here doesn't necessarily
> have to be the person who copies the databases, but more someone to organize
> it and ensure it all gets done (and communicated, especially within the
> forums).
> Note also that the proposal explicitly notes "Forum admins must become
> committers", and that [VOTE]s *are* always required to add any new
> committers to a project.  I'm not sure how many forum admins really need to
> be voted in, although we'd certainly welcome iCLAs (even without being a
> committer) from any of the forum organizers if they feel comfortable signing
> one.  And I think we can start the migration first, without worrying about
> committer bits unless there's a specific reason (especially with Andrew's
> note that the server is going away somewhat soon!)
>> So thanks for submitting the proposal.  It was discussed and no one
>> objected.  Congratulations.  Now the hard work begins....
>> -Rob
> - Shane

View raw message