openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
Date Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:35:09 GMT

On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Simon Phipps <> wrote:
>> On 30 Sep 2011, at 15:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Simon Phipps <> wrote:
>>>> What is the actual current harm you are seeking to correct, Rob? I had assumed
this sort of lock-down would wait until graduation from the incubator once it was clear what
worked and what didn't.
>>> Simon, I'm a PPMC member.  I try to avoid future harm, not just deal
>>> with "actual current harm".  It is called oversight.
>> My concern was that creating of closed rule-sets before actual problems present themselves
can also lead to inefficiency. The principle is sometimes called "YAGNI". I believe my question
was reasonable and polite and I would welcome a reply in the same tone.
> I am not suggesting a "closed rule set".   I'm suggesting that we take
> each decision on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the candidate
> according to the possible roles that they might fit, and vote for the
> role(s) that are most appropriate.  In some cases someone might become
> a committer, but not (initially) a PPMC member.  In other cases they
> might become both at once.  The decision should be made the PPMC, and
> they should have the discretion to do this.
> I think anyone who suggests removing this discretion from the PPMC and
> forcing a stance of "one size fits all" is the one who is arguing for
> a "closed rule set".

I see no reason to stop offering PPMC membership with Committer status. If the person chooses
not to be on the PPMC that is fine.

It is not that I don't think this topic is important, but I think a more important discussion
is what parts of the project might require direct PPMC member involvement as opposed to merely
questioning and having appropriate transparency into all parts to provide oversight. Do we
need a PPMC member directly administrating forums and wikis? Do we need the PPMC to provide
a generally "Lazy Consensus" approval of committers and other contributors filling roles within
the Forum or Wiki administration? Should the PPMC require certain parts of the community to
report status periodically?

Depending on how these questions are answered may give examples of special cases where Committer
status only is appropriate. For example and assuming that the User Forums choose to join this
project, should we require that all Admins be made into Committers and PPMC members, or that
we only need 3? Or something in between? (Leave aside the iCLA question which could be handled
of Terms of Use.)


>> Thanks
>> S.

View raw message