Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <50581FE5.6040309@gmail.com>
References: <5057683B.8070409@oracle.com>
	<20120918024516.60210@gmx.net>
	<50581FE5.6040309@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:38:35 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAP-ksogQXEjFJ9qs1GeXcxcMeS9w=y=1ZpegGVuO+V9vX8T9Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PMC] Proposed PMC List
From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:16 AM, J=C3=BCrgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@gmail.com=
> wrote:
> 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 <andrew.rist@oracle.com>
>>> An: ooo-dev <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Betreff: [PMC] Proposed PMC List
>>
>>>
>>> Andre Fischer (af)
>>> Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
>>> Drew Jensen (atjensen)
>>> J=C3=BCrgen 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 an=
d starting the next step:
>>
>> 1. Inclusive step
>> -----------------
>> We start by taking the latest proposed list (*) from the thread "Continu=
e 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 arch=
ives).
>> 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 "i=
s-included list". IMHO, it doesn't matter if the additionally proposed pers=
ons are from 'non-included', 'needs discussion' or anyone else. Self-nomina=
tion should also be allowed.
>>
>> At the end of step 1., we will have a list of 49 + X proposed PMC member=
s 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 wh=
o wants to attend the PMC. Committers need to express their interest on wor=
king on AOO governance. Persons who do not reply will be excluded and of co=
urse all those who simply say: 'no'. After step 2. we will have a shorter l=
ist that is then used as input for step 3.
>>
>> 3. Exclusive step 2
>> -------------------
>> That will be the toughest step and certainly spark controversy again. Co=
mmitters may raise concerns who of the persons remaining after step 2. is n=
ot appropriate to attend the AOO PMC. From my point of view, candidates sho=
uldn't be removed with a single veto, but every proposal for removal that f=
inds 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 o=
f 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.
>

+1

A review of Buridan's Ass is in order:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass

We need to start eating more hay, and spend less time designing
equivalent bales of hay.

IMHO, of course.

-Rob

> 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
> result.
>
> 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.
>
> Juergen
>
>
> 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
> later!
>
> 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 li=
st in "pass 5" was:
>> =3D=3D PMC member=3D=3D
>> Albino Neto (bino28)
>> Allen Pulsifer (apulsifer)
>> Andre Fischer (af)
>> Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
>> Andrew Rist (arist)
>> Ant=C3=B3n M=C3=A9ixome (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 D=C3=BCrr (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)
>> J=C3=BCrgen 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)
>> Zolt=C3=A1n Reizinger (r4zoli)
>>
>> =3D=3D Needs discussion =3D=3D
>> An Hongyun (hyan)
>> Michal Hrin
>> Paolo Pozzan
>> Hagar Delest
>> Frank Peters
>> Jomar Silva
>> Xia Zhao
>> Eike Rathke
>>
>> =3D=3D No PMC member (for now) =3D=3D
>> Arthur Buijs (artietee)
>> Christian Lippka (clippka)
>> Christoph Jopp (cjopp)
>> Florent Andr=C3=A9 (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)
>>
>> =3D=3D Emeritus =3D=3D
>> Wolf Halton (wolfhalton)(per his request)
>> Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) (per his request)
>>
>