incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
Date Sun, 19 Aug 2012 23:09:00 GMT
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> I'm unable to vote either way until:
>> A) a PMC chair has been identified by the community
>> B) a resolution for the TLP is prepared which will define what we are
>> voting on
>> Note, I'm generally in favour of the proposal but I do want to be sure that
>> the community has the resources it needs to continue to build and maintain
>> a healthy,vibrant and inclusive community. There are some candidates for
>> PMC chair that I can think of, but I don't know if they want the role.
>> In a healthy community the PMC role is just taking responsibility for board
>> reports (not necessarily writing them, just making sure they get written)
>> and any community actions requested by the board. It shouldn't be a time
>> consuming role, but it can become so on occasion.
>> This query should not prevent the community expressing their opinion in the
>> vote. I just wanted to let you know why I will be abstaining. You only need
>> my vote when it comes to the actual graduation vote.
> I understand.
> BTW - There are some Mentor related status items on [1] that need action. Would you be
able to take care of those items?

So the items I see as not marked as done are:

1. Make sure that the requested project name does not already exist
and check to be sure that the name is not already
trademarked for an existing software product.

2. Subscribe all Mentors on the pmc and general lists.

3. Give all Mentors access to the incubator SVN repository. (to be
done by the Incubator PMC chair or an Incubator PMC Member wih karma
for the authorizations file)

4. Tell Mentors to track progress in the file

For 1, we came with a transferred trademark, from Oracle.  I think
that can be considered an alternative way of demonstrating uniqueness,
since that was required in the first instance to acquire the
registered trademark,  So maybe we just put down the date of the

For 2, that is obviously done.  I assume it was done within hours of
the podling being created.

Ditto for 3.

For 4, this sounds incorrect.  It has been podling members, not
mentors, who have been maintaining the status file.  But for
completeness can we assume that the mentors were implicitly told to do
this when the IPMC approved the podling initially?

So is there anything on that list that you think needs Mentor
attention?  Anything else in the status file?


> Thanks & Regards,
> Dave
> [1]
>> Ross
>> On Aug 19, 2012 4:53 PM, "Rob Weir" <> wrote:
>>> Please vote in the main [VOTE] thread, and have discussion in this thread.
>>> Thanks!
>>> -Rob

View raw message