incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
Date Sun, 26 Aug 2012 14:17:22 GMT
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Ross Gardler
<> 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

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

> 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.


> 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" <> wrote:
>> On 26.08.2012 13:15, Tim Williams wrote:
>> > Marvin gave the link earlier in this thread. 4th para is the relevant
>> bit.
>> >
>> >
>> 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:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message