Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 01:10:46 +0200
From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
To: drew <drew@baseanswers.com>
Cc: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Message-ID: <20111011231046.GA6976@daniel3.local>
References: <00ae01cc8848$0d4bb530$27e31f90$@acm.org>
 <CAP-ksoh_T3uo2gMWkqGwb+fAKiW-geMHX+A_EaXqrCvAjPh+Mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111011210504.GA22830@daniel3.local>
 <017101cc885f$30a126c0$91e37440$@acm.org>
 <4E94BBF4.6080706@gmail.com>
 <1318370855.4943.124.camel@sybil>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1318370855.4943.124.camel@sybil>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

drew wrote on Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 18:07:35 -0400:
> On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 23:58 +0200, floris v wrote:
> > Op 11-10-2011 23:46, Dennis E. Hamilton schreef:
> > >> *H.* Should the ASF or the Apache OpenOffice.org project decide to
> > >> terminate its support of the forums, it will grant a period of at
> > >> least 90 days for the transfer of the contents and structure of the
> > >> forums to another host as decided by the Administrators, Moderators
> > >> and Volunteers.
> > > The PPMC is not empowered to agree to a clause that reads, "The ASF will
> > > grant 90 days to someone".  Only the board and officers can make
> > > commitments on behalf of the org.
> > >
> > > That's just the legal side of things and is not the same as the question
> > > of whether one should expect the ASF, should any of its entities decide
> > > to take the forums down, provide advance warning or migration codepath.
> > >
> > > The relevant entities in this case include IPMC, Infra, and Board.
> > How exactly should I understand this? Is this meant to be discouraging, 
> > like: forum people, you might as well leave right now?
> > 

No.

I don't know how to communicate my point more clearly than I did in the
first sentences of my previous email.

Beyond that, +1 all over Drew's reply --- including the points about
framework / organizational structure (goes to the PPMC's inability to
make commitments on behalf of the Foundation), about a broader group
(I'm not on the PPMC), and about not jumping to conclusions.

> 
> Hi Floris,
> 
> Just my thought on that - if you recall I mentioned that it was time to
> let the Apache folks see the proposal and make sure it fits into the
> framework here also - it is a two way street..if I understand what is
> being said it is merely that this is something not seen before and will
> naturally, IMO, get a review from a broader group then just the PPMC.
> 
> and now I see that Ross G. has stated pretty much exactly that.
> 
> So, just my .02 worth - it doesn't appear to be anything beyond what one
> should expect at this point and I would strongly advise not to jump to
> any conclusions.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> //drew
>