incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <...@shanecurcuru.org>
Subject Re: [WWW][Policy] Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Date Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:16:22 GMT
I can actually answer part of this question somewhat definitively:

On 2011-11-18 9:07 PM, MiguelAngel wrote:
> El 19/11/11 0:50, Rob Weir escribió:
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts
>> <lsuarezpotts@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I pretty much did the initial draft of the page and set the logic of
>>> what counted as "participate" and "contribute".  And I was raked over
>>> the coals by the United Developers of the World who critiqued my
>>> conflation of any old contribution with sophisticated development.
>>> Point taken, they were right, I was wrong, but the point was to grow
>>> the project and to thus justify its existence. Development would come,
>>> once the market was established.
>>>
>>> So now we are here. What do we want out of this? Do we want to re-do
>>> the strategy of yore and expand the market?
>>>
>> Hi Louis,  I was making a much narrower point, that if I were looking
>> to donate cash to an open source project, I would not think to look
>> under a link that read "I want to participate".  That was my only
>> point.  I wasn't expressing an opinion on code versus other forms of
>> participation.  We need and welcome volunteers of all kinds.
>>
>> -Rob
> Hi Louis, Rob,
> Please, who is ** we **?
> Maybe can be misunderstood.
> Miguel Ángel

The we in "We need and welcome volunteers of all kinds" refers to the 
Apache OpenOffice PPMC and it's set of active committers on this mailing 
list.

I think this is another significant difference between how the previous 
OpenOffice.org project ran, and how the Apache OpenOffice podling runs. 
  From discussion here and elsewhere, it's clear that in the past there 
were a *lot* of people who claimed various relationships with the 
previous OpenOffice.org project.  Then, as now, it wasn't often clear 
what, specifically, those relationships were, or who could 
authoritatively speak on behalf of the project (well, in that case, 
various projects, like education, calc, marketing, etc. etc.)

For Apache OpenOffice, the governance is clear: PPMC members vote on 
releases and new committers, and may, in consultation with the PPMC, 
speak about the project with some authority.  All committers may checkin 
code and make proposals for the direction of the project.

Contributors on Apache OpenOffice are welcomed, and encouraged to 
participate more by submitting patches, ideas, proposals, and whatever 
else you can think of that would help.  But they are not officially part 
of the project and may not speak on the project's behalf.

Separately, the idea of "admins", "leads", and various other titles from 
the previous OpenOffice.org project is no more.  Apache OpenOffice has 
PPMC members, committers, and now - while it's in incubation - mentors. 
  There are no other titles normally given out at Apache projects, nor 
are there *any* long-term titles for Apache projects other than a PMC 
chair (which is after AOO graduates).

Justin Erenkrantz' presentation about the Apache Way has a great way to 
think about leadership in Apache projects:

"Whomever has the best idea 'leads'... until a better idea is presented 
to the group, and then that new person 'leads'."

- Shane, AOO mentor

Mime
View raw message