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 23:18:12 GMT
Some people "think", others have stayed clearly and unambiguously.
Including mentors who have voted on your binary release.

If the peanut gallery it's a confused then educate, don't argue. As for
those demanding a policy, I repeat my original statement - patches welcome.

The arguments are pointless.

You want precision. You have it. It's in the thread. You we given a clear
and direct response to your proposal. Don't tell me to read the thread
again. I already wasted my time reading it twice. As well as time spent
reviewing the AOO release.

Draw out the clarity that exists then, if necessary, go to legal@ with
three remainder.

Continuing to argue is a waste if time.

>From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness
On Aug 26, 2012 10:17 AM, "Rob Weir" <robweir@apache.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Ross Gardler
> <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> Clear to some, but obviously not clear to others on the IPMC, since
> some are suggesting that this podling is not in conformance with ASF
> policy with regard to releases.
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> Ross you should read the entire thread.  You'll find that some on the
> IPMC are suggesting that there is more to policy that what you or Joe
> think there is.
>
> I'm trying to figure out exactly what that delta is.  If you have
> anything constructive to add, I'm sure it would be appreciated.
>
> It is one thing to have an unwritten policy, it is another to have
> vastly different interpretations of what that policy is.  For
> something as critical as defining what a release is, since there are
> clearly differences of opinion, it is probably time to raise it above
> the level of folklore, and write it down.  No one should be genuinely
> insulted by a request that what is claimed as ASF policy be written
> down, especially if someone has already volunteered to do the
> drafting.
>
> In any case I now count four people on the IPMC list who are
> suggesting that we need a written policy in this area, to remove
> ambiguity.
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> IMHO it is very constructive in a disagreement to at least identify,
> with some precision, what it is that we are disagreeing about.
> Until that occurs, we're just going in circles.  So far I'm the only
> one in that thread who has put forward a constructive proposal for
> this language, and asked if there was anything to add.
>
> -Rob
>
> > 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