incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List
Date Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:10:51 GMT
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Ross Gardler
<> wrote:
> On 25 September 2012 11:22, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Ian Lynch <> wrote:
>>> On 25 September 2012 06:15, imacat <> wrote:
>>>>     I feel honored to be listed.  I would like to help PMC if there is a
>>>> chance.
>>>>     In any case, I suggest at least one female should be included in the
>>>> PMC, to encourage the contribution of females in the community and bring
>>>> diverse voices in PMC.  It is very important to encourage more and more
>>>> female contributors to join the community, and make them feel that
>>>> OpenOffice is theirs', not of some male geeks.
>>> +1 broad representation is important.
>> IMHO this is a bad idea and if we go down this route it demonstrates
>> that we do not understand The Apache Way.
> I don't think the idea of actively seeking broad representation is
> necessarily counter to the Apache Way. It depends on exactly how that
> representation is achieved.

Perhaps you missed my last paragraph where I talked specifically about
seeking broad participation?

The issue is not diversity.  In fact Roy has stated quite bluntly that
diversity in itself is not an issue with graduation.  The issue is
thinking of the PMC as a representative body, where participants
"represent" some finer grained constituency and where the composition
of the PMC is optimized to someone's view of what a proper
distribution is, rather then on merit.  If it is wrong for someone to
claim to "represent IBM" then it is equally wrong for someone to claim
to "represent Asian women".  We participate as individuals.

IMHO we should be hearing the word "representation" a lot less when
describing the PMC.  It *is not* a representative body.  Individuals
participate based on their own merit, not as representatives of some
other group of interest.  We underestimate how radically different a
meritocracy is if we do not grok this distinction.

Or maybe you and Ian are using the word "representation" in some loose way?

To note: the legacy project was representative, and
some may be reverting to that mental model, of governance that had
fixed set aside seats for specific representation, e.g., one person
from the Calc project, one person from the NCL, one seat set aside for
Sun, etc.

>> The PMC *is not* representative. The PMC is inclusive of *all that
>> show merit* for the things that the PMC is responsible for.  To have a
>> PMC based on representation suggests that members are included for
>> things other than merit, or that other potential members are excluded
>> based on representation concerns regardless of their demonstrated
>> merit.  Both are wrong.
> I agree both are wrong.
> On the other hand I really hope that Imacat and others seek to address
> the issue of
> inclusion of all. Such work is, in itself, worthy of merit yet is
> often not recognised as such in software projects like those here in
> the ASF.

Inclusion != a representative PMC.  Inclusion is about recruitment and
ensuring that all merit is recognized.  It is not about quotas.


View raw message