incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
Date Sun, 26 Aug 2012 11:46:38 GMT
Moving back to AOO lists

These argument is a waste of everyones time. It seems to me that what is/is
not permissible is clear, indeed has been clear for some time.the summary
is... Patches welcome.

More importantly...

As for some members of the AOO PPMC implying this is all new to them
because it is not documented in precise language is frankly insulting to
mentors whom have worked hard to communicate release policy around binaries.

Individuals arguing against those who know the ASF well, and are supported
by the vast majority of community commentators (including those opting to
stay silent because their points have been made), are not demonstrating
their ability to work in a collaborative, constructive project environment.

When creating a PMC we are looking for people who can resolve conflict, not
make conflict. PMC members need to be constructive not obstructive. A
failure to recognise the difference is a demonstration of a failure to
understand how ASF projects work. PMC membership does not empower people to
contribute to the code, it empowers them to ensure the community is healthy.

The style of argumentation on this topic is, in some cases, destructive not
constructive. I'm not replying to a specific mail or individual, I'm simply
asking people to consider whether sending another email is constructive or
destructive. Is it possible to put that time into a constructive patch
instead?

Ross
On Aug 26, 2012 7:26 AM, "Branko ─îibej" <brane@apache.org> wrote:

> On 26.08.2012 13:15, Tim Williams wrote:
> > Marvin gave the link earlier in this thread. 4th para is the relevant
> bit.
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
>
> The relevant part is in the last paragraph. However, that says
> "convenience" and defines version numbering requirements, but it does
> /not/ state that the binaries are not sanctioned by the ASF and are not
> part of the official ASF release.
>
> It would be very useful if that paragraph were amended to say so
> explicitly. I've had no end of trouble trying to explain to managers and
> customers that any binaries that come from the ASF are not "official".
> Regardless of the policy stated numerous times in this thread and on
> this list, this is not clear anywhere in the bylaws or other online
> documentation (that I can find).
>
> -- Brane
>
> P.S.: I asked this same question on legal-discuss a week ago. My post
> has not even been moderated through as of today, so referring people to
> that list doesn't appear to be too helpful.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message