incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Grobmeier <grobme...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Date Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:12:06 GMT
>>> The Apache Way is like Zen.  There are some rules and plenty of
>>> guidelines,
>>> but it's really about having a healthy community that listens to each
>>> other
>>> and works towards consensus.
>>>
>>
>> Shane, it should be obvious to a stone that I am advocating the Zen
>> approach of just taking the lazy consensus and moving forward to it.

Please let us not discuss Zen now.

> Personally, I'd love to see a [VOTE] thread on the forum migration issue if
> for nothing else than to show the forum volunteers the amount of support
> they have here.  I get the impression that they think "we" really don't like
> them, and I have to say that a significant number of them have mentioned the
> style of your participation in the forum threads as the specific reason for
> that.  Personally, I think the social and community aspect of this migration
> is far more important than procedural issues.

+1

But we are just mentors.

We have no cared long time on the forum. It is time that the ooo-dev
takes the lead and shows them a signal that the project is ready to
adopt them. Be it with a vote or a nice message. After all it is the
ooo-dev win or loss on this.

I think the time has come that somebody of the ooo-dev takes the lead
and brings the forum to the project.

If this has been agreed with a lazy consens, then the project should
start a vote to bring the new PMC people.

Whatever. The forum people has been asked to bring in at proposal.
They did. Now it is time to say in clear words: yes, guys, please
join.

So ooo-dev, please fight for your forum yourself now.






>
> - Shane, realizing he also hasn't had breakfast yet, which could explain
> some things.
>
>> Now is the time for the forum admins, moderators and volunteers to
>> decide if they want to go forward, based on the lazy consensus
>> received.  Or whether they want to tie this up in another week of
>> procedural wrangling.  And for what purpose?.  Personally I'd
>> recommend that they JFDI.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Also, I really question if a significant percentage of the rest of the
>>> PPMC
>>> has a similar shared understanding to this view in terms of how rigid you
>>> seem to see policies everywhere.  Given that the podling is only a few
>>> months old, and it's made up of primarily new committers, I expect any
>>> "rules" here to be changed a few times before graduation.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, we should be voting on things in only two situations:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Where the Apache process requires it, e.g., releases, new committers,
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>> And please note Christian's comment:
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally we are adding people to the PMC
>>>>> with this vote too!
>>>
>>> Really?  Who - specifically - are we adding to the PMC?  Does everyone on
>>> this thread really have the same understanding of what this proposal
>>> does?
>>>
>>> PMC or committer additions are one of the things that do require a vote,
>>> and
>>> that's a rule you can't break.  It should also be a separate vote for
>>> each
>>> individual being added.
>>>
>>> - Shane
>>>
>>>> 2) Where prolonged discussion and good faith efforts have failed to
>>>> reach a consensus and we're forced to have a vote to choose from
>>>> alternatives
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we should allow a proposer to self-select a decision
>>>> making method (a vote) that requires a lesser degree of consensus.  If
>>>> we allowed this, then wouldn't we decide every question via a vote?
>>>> What proposer would not prefer to have the lesser requirement of 51%
>>>> approval rather than risk a veto when calling for lazy consensus?
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>
>



-- 
http://www.grobmeier.de

Mime
View raw message