openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <j...@apache.org>
Subject community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
Date Sat, 07 Mar 2015 09:10:39 GMT
Just realized, that many might jump over the old subject.

This issue is an important issue and should not be hidden behind another
subject.

rgds
jan i.

On 7 March 2015 at 10:03, jan i <jani@apache.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 7 March 2015 at 01:55, Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On 06/03/2015 Dave Barton wrote:
>> >
>> >> OK! One last attempt to clarify and resolve a trivial issue, that has
>> >> become clouded in misunderstanding and mistranslated into some kind of
>> >> "bike-shedding" subject.
>> >>
>> >
>> > ...and misunderstood (or portrayed) as a transparency issue, when the
>> > answer to your question on who is moderating the API list can readily be
>> > found at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6095 and needed no
>> > further discussion.
>>
>>
>> ... which is of course the first place anyone would think to look! Just
>> needs a "beware of the leopard" sign :-)
>>
>> Seriously, there's a community issue here. Those of us not on the PMC
>> discovered accidentally that apparently harmless updates Kay proposed --
>> and was already implementing -- had been vetoed for undocumented reasons
>> by
>> unknown voices in a secret venue. Doesn't sound like the Apache Way.
>>
>> I believe the continued discussion is because of that and the strong
>> reaction to asking about it, rather than the details of how and why to
>> list
>> the moderators (which to me still seems obvious, uncontroversial, modestly
>> beneficial and best done simply). It begs the question why that reaction
>> happened.
>>
>
> You are opening a very important issue here. This moderator subject was,
> but should never have been discussed in private.
>
> During my first round as PMC, and now in  my second round, I can see the
> private@ is being wrongly used (in my opinion, with my PMC hat on) to
> have long discussions which could just as well be public. I am convinced
> that the PMC is NOT doing this on purpose, but simply because they forget.
>
> Without disclosing content here are some interesting numbers:
> private@aoo compared to dev@aoo
> March: 53 on private@, 93 on dev@
> Feb: 347 on private@, 400 on dev@
> Jan: 111 on private@, 542 on dev@
>
> Numbers are taken from the mail archives, and might be off by a couple.
>
> I am a member of several projects and it is fair to say that none of the
> other private lists I follow have a similar relationship. Typically private@
> in the projects I follow count for 5-10% of the mails.
>
> I agree with Simon that we have a community issue here (thanks Simon for
> pointing it out, I had not made the connection between moderators and the
> use of private@)
>
> Some of the PMC are trying to stop the mail flood and remind the PMC group
> to make the thread publicly, but it seems to be something that takes time.
> I for one will do, as I did in the beginning of this thread (and got quite
> flamed for it) disclose my own opinion and as much as I can from private@
> without breaking the rules.
>
> I believe it is high time to discuss this issue openly...and hopefully not
> only contributors but also comitters will raise their voice.
>
> rgds
> jan I.
>
>
> S.
>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message