openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Proposal: Forum integration
Date Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:51:36 GMT
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:19 PM, drew <> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 14:15 -0400, drew wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 19:23 +0200, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> we have spoken much - now its time to outline what needs to be done.
>>>>> have started a Wiki page with that:
>>>>> Lets bring the talk into shapes.
>>>> Thanks for that Christian.
>>> sorry - a double post.
>>>> My only real question is regarding the moderators needing to be part of
>>>> the PMC - I'm not at all sure I see that need.
>>> just to be clear - although I would encourage mod's to be in the PMC my
>>> question is about making it a hard requirement.
>> I'd think of it this way:
>> We don't want a stranger to walk off the street and be immediately a
>> moderator, right?  It requires some level of vetting.  A moderator can
>> ban users, they can kick real people off the boards if they do not
>> like their behavior. So it is a position of authority.  A Moderator is
>> an important role with real influence.  They, through their decisions,
>> help set the tone of the forum and represent the "public face" of
>> Apache OpenOffice.
>> How do we ensure, as a project, that the right people are given that
>> responsibility?  In other words, in what way does the PPMC oversee
>> this?  One way would be to use the committer proposal/approval
>> process.  Something less formal, is what we do with mailing list
>> moderators.  We propose a name to ooo-dev, in public, seek lazy
>> consensus, and then ask Apache Infra to add their names.  They don't
>> need to be a committer, but they require nomination and lazy consensus
>> approval.
> The main change you are proposing is where the nomination occurs. According to numerous
descriptions of how the forums are administrated even "Volunteers" are known and selected
before they get that status. I think this is probably reasonable.

Maybe you can restate that in another way.  It doesn't parse for me.
Anyone in any approval process needs to be known before they are
selected, right?  This is not a novel concept.  The question really is
who approves moderators?  Given that the role carries more
responsibility than other roles, like mailing list moderator, where we
already require lazy consensus on ooo-dev, what do we require of

In other words, we need to connect the dots.  The PPMC oversees the
project, chaired by an Apache VP, responsible to the ASF Board.  The
Moderators represent the public face of the project, with powers over
users who participate on the Apache-branded and hosted support forum.
How do we connect the dots?  There may be more than one way of doing
this, but I hope we agree that the dots need to be connected somehow.

If anyone can explain better "Volunteers", that would be great.  Do
they have any extra rights?  Or is it just the case that some of what
Apache would call "contributors" are given the title "Volunteer" while
other, perhaps less active contributors are not given that title?

> A second change is adding to Infrastructure the burden of maintaining the moderator list.
I'm not so sure that this is necessary.

I don't think I said that anywhere.

> Regards,
> Dave
>> -Rob
>>>> I'm wondering if there is a particular action or actions that you feel
>>>> triggers this as a requirement?
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> //drew

View raw message