incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jürgen Schmidt <>
Subject Re: [PMC] Proposed PMC List
Date Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:16:53 GMT
On 9/18/12 4:45 AM, Peter Junge wrote:
> Hi,
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>> Datum: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:13:15 -0700
>> Von: Andrew Rist <>
>> An: ooo-dev <>
>> Betreff: [PMC] Proposed PMC List
>> Andre Fischer (af)
>> Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
>> Drew Jensen (atjensen)
>> Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
>> Kay Schenk (kschenk)
>> Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
>> Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
>> Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
>> RGB.ES (rgb-es)
> I would like to propose a different approach and determining the PMC in three steps.
Every step should take 72 hours, then compiling the results and starting the next step:
> 1. Inclusive step
> -----------------
> We start by taking the latest proposed list (*) from the thread "Continue work on a final
PMC roster" (Juergen, Sept 6, 2012) that happened before on ooo-private@. (No reference because
not anyone can read the private archives).
> That list already included 49 committers to be consider for the PMC. As well a couple
of 'non-included' persons and 'needs discussion' are listed.
> During step 1. everybody is free to propose anyone to be added to the "is-included list".
IMHO, it doesn't matter if the additionally proposed persons are from 'non-included', 'needs
discussion' or anyone else. Self-nomination should also be allowed.
> At the end of step 1., we will have a list of 49 + X proposed PMC members that will be
used as input for step 2.
> 2. Exclusive step 1
> -------------------
> We contact everyone who is included in the resulting list of step 1., if (s)he wants
to be part ob the AOO PMC. A reply is mandatory for anybody who wants to attend the PMC. Committers
need to express their interest on working on AOO governance. Persons who do not reply will
be excluded and of course all those who simply say: 'no'. After step 2. we will have a shorter
list that is then used as input for step 3.
> 3. Exclusive step 2
> -------------------
> That will be the toughest step and certainly spark controversy again. Committers may
raise concerns who of the persons remaining after step 2. is not appropriate to attend the
AOO PMC. From my point of view, candidates shouldn't be removed with a single veto, but every
proposal for removal that finds supporters needs to be carried out.
> The result of step 3. in a agreed-on list of PMC members.
> Please comment on my proposal. If there are no significant objections, I would draft
an initial posting for executing the above proposed procedure next weekend. Processing will
likely take about 2 weeks: 3x72h + a couple of days to compile results and moving forward
to the step in between.

I think it is counterproductive that whenever we try to push the PMC
roster selection process forward somebody comes up with a new proposal
that she/he prefers over the others. Any attempt on ooo-private to
continue the started selection process got interrupted by somebody for
whatever reasons.

I say we should concentrate on finishing things that have to be done
anyway and let us move forward and let us come to an agreement. Andrew's
proposal was known for some days now and nobody really complained and
nobody tried to push it forward. Probably because some attempts on
private were interrupted immediately.

Now we started to give this attempt a try with a clear timeline of one
week and check the result afterwards. Why not simply trying it? And the
explained way sounds reasonable to get an impression which people have
merit enough trust and confidence by the rest of the community to serve
in the PCM.

Several approaches could be used and probably all come to a similar
result. I believe at least all filter processes will come to a similar

In the end it doesn't really matter and the selected PMC will be the
start only and will grow over time.

A few words below to our initial approach on ooo-private to help people
to understand how we started the initial process.

I reused parts of a draft that I had ready for several days and where I
of course proposed also a new approach. But I skipped the proposal
because it is similar to Andrews. And more important is not how we
accomplish the PMC roster but that we finish it. And that we can all
support the selected approach.

We should continue the graduation process because I still believe that
we are ready. And the best way to demonstrate that we can manage
ourselves is to move this PMC roster definition, the PMC chair selection
and the graduation forward in the Apache way.

Graduation and being a TLP will be the last important signal to the
public that AOO is arrived at Apache finally and can be probably seen as
a safe investment to migrate to or to build a business on top of it. All
this will help to grow our project. And that is our all goal, we want a
growing community by bringing more people to OpenOffice and to
participate more active in the community.

So let us move forward and let us take the exit of the circle.


Extract of my draft:

We as project got advised that we should do some cleanup of the PPMC
before we move forward to graduation as a TLP.

We had many, many discussion on this already (mainly on our private list
because we did already discuss names) and I will try to explain what we
had done so far and what are our options to finalize this selection
process. We have to think about it anyway and it can be done completely
independent of any other ongoing discussion. Whatever we will find out
somewhere else we have to come back to a selection process.

My goal here is to explain things and make it transparent for all.

There is an ongoing discussion what a good PMC member would be and I
recommend everybody to read this and other related threads to get an
idea and an opinion about it.

If you are not interested in the PMC it's fine, it's no must, not
necessary, no privilege and shouldn't be seen as a special status. At
Apache all community members are in principal equal and can contribute
in the way they prefer and they can.

Current PPMC
The current PPMC exists of many initial committers and some people we
have voted in over time and when we voted for people to become a
committer and PPMC member in one step. We noticed that this doesn't
scale very well in the long term and we started to decouple the vote and
make them independent from each other.
To make it short we have a huge PPMC where many people are not visible,
not active, do not participate in any kind of stuff that needs to be
done by a PMC.

The question is if that make sense and in case of no, how we can correct
it before we graduate?

A question and a necessary selection process that nobody like and
where we probably can make mistakes only. But we have to do it sooner or

What we have done so far?
The first step we have started with was to think about the current PPMC
and try to figure out who is still here, who participate in the project,
who is active, who is visible. Nothing more and nothing less because we
think that this was a good first selection. At least we discussed it and
nobody really complained about it. The next obvious step should have
been to discuss further candidates that felt through this selection
process. Well we haven't finished this step and haven't finished the
definition or selection of a final PMC roster at all that we need for a
potential graduation.
The reason is that we drifted in much more general discussion and moved
a little bit round in circles (at least from my point of view). Don't
get me wrong these discussion were probably useful in the end but they
were expensive. I don't go in further details and I think we are not
longer interested to seek the fault for this by somebody ...
We learned hopefully from it and it happens in such a constellation that
people have different opinions. In the end it is important that we come
to a consensus and move forward.

> Peter
> (*) For those who haven't followed the discussion the latest proposed list in "pass 5"
> == PMC member==
> Albino Neto (bino28)
> Allen Pulsifer (apulsifer)
> Andre Fischer (af)
> Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
> Andrew Rist (arist)
> Antón Méixome (meixome)
> Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch)
> Armin Le Grand (alg)
> Carl B. Marcum (cmarcum)
> Claudio Filho (filhocf)
> Cyril Beaussier (bidouille)
> Damjan Jovanovic (damjan)
> Dave Barton (bmcs)
> David Fisher (wave) (Apache Membeber)
> David McKay (thegurkha)
> Donald P. Harbison (dpharbison)
> Drew Jensen (atjensen)
> Graham Lauder (yo)
> Herbert Dürr (hdu)
> Ian Lynch (ingotian)
> Jian Fang Zhang (zhangjf)
> Jian Hong Cheng (chengjh)
> Jim Jagielski (jim) (Apache Membeber)
> Jin Hua Chen (chenjinh)
> Juan C. Sanz (jucasaca)
> Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
> Kay Schenk (kschenk)
> Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
> Louis Suarez-Potts (louis)
> Maho NAKATA (maho)
> Marcus Lange (marcus)
> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
> Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
> Peter Junge (pj)
> Phillip Rhodes (prhodes)
> Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
> Regina Henschel (regina)
> RGB.ES (rgb-es)
> Rob Weir (robweir)
> Roberto Galoppini (galoppini)
> Roberto Salomon (salomon)
> Simon Brouwer (simonbr)
> Thomas J. Frazier (yj)
> Wang Lei (leiw)
> Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
> Yong Lin Ma (mayongl)
> Yuri Dario (ydario)
> Zhe Wang (wangzcdl)
> Zoltán Reizinger (r4zoli)
> == Needs discussion ==
> An Hongyun (hyan) 
> Michal Hrin 
> Paolo Pozzan 
> Hagar Delest 
> Frank Peters 
> Jomar Silva 
> Xia Zhao
> Eike Rathke 
> == No PMC member (for now) ==
> Arthur Buijs (artietee)
> Christian Lippka (clippka)
> Christoph Jopp (cjopp)
> Florent André (florent)
> Ingrid von der Mehden (ingrid)
> Ivo Hinkelmann (ivo)
> Kai Ahrens (kahrens)
> Kai Sommerfeld (kso)
> Lawrence Rosen (lrosen) (Apache Member)
> Malte Timmermann (malte)
> Manfred A. Reiter (fredao)
> Martin Hollmichel (mhollmichel)
> Mathias Bauer (mbauer)
> Stefan Taxhet (st)
> Stephan Bergmann (sb)
> Steve Lee (stevelee)
> Yegor Kozlov (yegor) (Apache Member)
> == Emeritus ==
> Wolf Halton (wolfhalton)(per his request)
> Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) (per his request)

View raw message