Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of luispo@gmail.com designates
 209.85.210.175 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1486\))
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Louis_Su=E1rez-Potts?= <luispo@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <009b01cd9673$1f2498f0$5d6dcad0$@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:18:13 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0C0F347E-2FD5-409B-AB2E-1ADD998210B3@gmail.com>
References: <505767D9.7060703@oracle.com> <5058D6BC.4040700@apache.org>
 <5058FD04.402@oracle.com> <009b01cd9673$1f2498f0$5d6dcad0$@apache.org>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org,
 <orcmid@apache.org>

Hi,

On 12-09-19, at 10:29 , "Dennis E. Hamilton" <orcmid@apache.org> wrote:

> -1=20
>=20
> This procedure lacks transparency and accountability.  It is =
incompatible with how project governance is accomplished.
>=20
> My recommendation is that those who have some reason to require =
anonymity with regard to their nominations (that is what it is, =
individuals are asked to make 10 nominations) should send their =
nominations to ooo-private@ incubator.apache.org.
>=20
> The subject should contain "[PMC] Proposed PMC List" and it should not =
contain any discussion.  These are simply nominations.  The moderators =
of ooo-private will accept those posts from all sources.
>=20
> When the compilation of nominations is prepared, *all* submitters of =
nominations will be identified in a list as confirmation that their =
nominations were included.  There should be no identification of who has =
nominated a particular individual.  Only the number of nominations for =
any nominated individual should be reported.
>=20
> It would be useful to have the report double-checked by one or more =
PPMC members to ensure that noone's nominations were overlooked or =
double counted.  (On duplicate nominations, the usual rule is to use the =
latest one received.)

I agree with Dennis' comments and suggest that we not use the list for =
nominations (top ten list) but rather for notice of a live list at a =
wiki that can be made more transparent. The point is that the list via =
email becomes sedimented, so that the most recent agreements stay =
surface, the logic buried, and this sedimentation eliminates the real =
nature of the PMC dynamic.

louis
>=20
> - Dennis
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Rist [mailto:andrew.rist@oracle.com]=20
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 16:00
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List
>=20
> (top posting after private messages - I cannot describe the shame I=20
> feel...  ;-)
>=20
> I have an option that I believe will handle Andrea's concerns.  I have=20=

> spoken with Ross and he is amenable to receiving Proposed PMC entries=20=

> off list.
> If anyone is concerned about sending their list to ooo-dev, you can =
send=20
> it to Ross ( rgardler at apache) instead, and at the end of the period=20=

> (next Sunday), he will send an anonymized summary of the votes he has=20=

> received, along with a breakdown of submissions by committers/PPMC vs=20=

> other community members.
>=20
> We have received lists from 10 people and have 25 nominees with =
multiple=20
> votes.  It would be great to get even more feedback.
>=20
> A.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 9/18/2012 1:17 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> On 17/09/2012 Andrew Rist wrote:
>>> * This is not a vote. This is a search for consensus. Please no '-1'
>>> replies. Let's see what this process produces, and then discuss
>>> from there.
>>=20
>> It seems that the process is working quite well, and that we are on=20=

>> the right way to bootstrap a PMC by consensus.
>>=20
>> I surely don't want to block the current process, but I wonder if=20
>> allowing people to "vote" (actually, express preferences) anonymously=20=

>> would be better for some volunteers/cultures. Our mentors have often=20=

>> stated that we have secure voting solutions available, but maybe this=20=

>> is overkill and time-consuming, and it would be enough to allow =
people=20
>> to send their lists to a mentor (if available), who would repost them=20=

>> here.
>>=20
>> It is not an issue that I feel personally: it's OK for me to continue=20=

>> with public messages on ooo-dev. But it could be that others have=20
>> problems, and in that case I'd encourage them to speak up so that we=20=

>> can find a way to ensure that everyone can express their opinions.
>>=20
>> Regards,
>>  Andrea.
>=20