incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
Date Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:45:44 GMT
The release documentation has far more precision in it than
a casual glance would indicate.  There is no good reason to
write about every associated topic in a policy document.
I'm not going to read /dev/release.html to you personally Rob
but I will point out that several people including the IPMC
chair have been consistently referencing and quoting the doc
to you so that you may better equip yourself to reason about
the policy through the document.

Yes there is a reason newspapers are written to an 8th grade
level but laws are written for experts in the field.  Different
target audiences with totally different fields of applicability.

----- Original Message -----
> From: Rob Weir <>
> To:
> Cc: 
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 12:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Joe Schaefer <> 
> wrote:
>>  Bullshit.  The policy is as old as the org itself and applies equally
> The problem is that when someone questions what the policy is, as
> several IPMC members have already, the response goes no further than
> yelling that the policy is well-known, obvious, unambiguous, clear,
> etc.  No one is questioning the age or the equal application of the
> policy.
> Shutting down the discussion, without resolving the issue, just leads
> to it emerging later at another point.  In fact, if you go back to the
> general.i.a.o discussion from June 2011, when the AOO podling was
> first proposed, some of the same concerns were raised by some of the
> same IPMC members.  They were not resolved then.  They were not
> resolved this time.  What do you think happens next?  Do you really
> think that there is clarity now and this will not just come back
> again, weeks or months later?
> The IPMC is welcome to run themselves as they wish.  But I sincerely
> hope that the AOO project will not emulate or tolerate this kind of
> behavior and interaction.  It is very unwelcoming to newcomers to have
> that mixture of condescension and bullying when questions are asked.
>>  to every project in the org including this one.  Rob, if you had the 
> vaguest
>>  clue about the history of what the httpd project produces you would have
>>  some idea of what the written policy is meant to cover.  People who 
> don't bother
>>  to look often wind up making ignorant remarks about the written policy;
>>  such is the nature of orgs which have zero educational standards for
>>  participation at any level.
> Certainly unwritten policies are even more susceptible to ignorant remarks.
>>  Policy writing itself is a long and painful process in a bottom-up org.
>>  Very few people have enough experience with the diversity of our projects
>>  to ensure the policy accurately reflects current activity.  The only person
>>  who I've seen be consistently successful is Roy, and even then not 
> without
>>  input from others.
> I appreciate the challenges of writing organizational policies.  I've
> done this in other organizations.  But as you say, this policy "is as
> old as the org itself ", and yet when it is shown that those who are
> charged with implementing the policy for podlings (IPMC members)
> cannot agree on what the policy is, there is still great resistance to
> writing it down, amounting to even personal attacks against those who
> even suggest doing this.
>>  Your are welcome to get off your armchair and participate constructively
>>  with others who care about the policy documentation over on site-dev@.
> Indeed I did propose a statement of the policy.  I believe I'm the
> only one who did.  But at the same time others posted that it would be
> unwelcome to make any website changes without further discussion.
>>  Otherwise I suggest you drop the antagonistic and over-the-top prose.
> I sincerely hope that nothing I said is taken as antagonistic.
> Regards,
> -Rob

View raw message