incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
Date Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:05:05 GMT
I oppose anything that generates more off-topic mailing list traffic.
Collaborative discussions surrounding documented policy belong on site-dev@.
Everything else is a waste of time for all concerned.



----- Original Message -----
> From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 1:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
> 
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> 
> wrote:
>>  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.
>> 
> 
> Joe, this isn't about my knowledge.  I believe I have accurate
> knowledge of ASF release-related policies.  The issues that I listed
> -- the open questions -- they were not from me.  These were from IPMC
> members, those who were voted in as ASF Members and then accepted as
> IPMC members.  Those were their assertions.  You might be able to
> dismiss their concerns easily.  As a PPMC member I cannot.  They all
> have a vote on AOO.  I need to treat their concerns with some degree
> of respect.
> 
> So the question is not what I know, but how to respond to IPMC members
> who raise points of the variety that you eloquently termed "bullshit"?
> 
> One way is to simply yell them down, say repeatedly that this is not
> an issue, that policy is crystal clear, that anyone who disagrees has
> subhuman mental capabilities, etc.  That is the route that some took
> 
> Another way is to first agree with precision on what the policy
> actually is and to ask for specific concerns with regards to AOO and
> that policy.  That was the route I was taking.
> 
> So I think we have the same view of some of the nonsense that was
> expressed on the list, as well as a similar view on what ASF policy
> actually is.
> 
> Perhaps we differ on how to resolve conflicts when they occur?   In
> any case what works for you probably would not work for me.  So I'll
> continue, in situations like these, to calmly seek clarity and
> consensus.
> 
> Good cop, bad cop?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rob
> 
>> 
>>  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 <robweir@apache.org>
>>>  To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>  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 
> <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
>>>  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
>>> 
> 

Mime
View raw message