openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: An invitation to committers to the OOo Community Forums
Date Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:29:02 GMT
All of this mention and talking about moderators has raised a puzzle in my mind.

We have moderation on all of our lists.  What is the oversight on moderator actions?

 - Dennis

PS: Hypothetical slippery-slope arguments don't work.  It is mutual in all of those categories
what conditions we place on contributions and whether the contributor accepts them.  We could
let the forums go fish (actually, we can't stop them).  But is it in the Apache
OOo Podling's collective interest for that to happen?

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [] 
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 10:38
Subject: Re: An invitation to committers to the OOo Community Forums

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Terry Ellison <> wrote:
[ ... ]

> -0.75  yes we should put this to the community, but this is not how they
> operate today.  I do know that the majority of the "big hitters" are really
> unhappy with this.  Please realise that if you force this one, you will
> probably have a very obedient forum, but one with nobody answering any Qs --
> or some revolt where they take their service en-mass elsewhere.

You can see what would if support volunteers demand to work the way
they have always worked, not integrating into the Apache project, and
if translators demanded the same, and then technical writers demanded
the same?  What then?  Developers demanding to work in Mercurial under

In any case, could you maybe float a counter proposal?  Something
--anything -- that acknowledges that transparency is important,
something that makes some effort to meet us half way?  Something more
than your current proposal which appears to be "Thanks for the
hardware, Apache.  Now leave us alone".

> Policy discussions are one matter, but moderation must be the business of
> the moderators.  They have made it quite clear in the past that they really
> don't want to have these discussions in public view.  Again we can only
> sound them out.

The proposal I made had moderation decisions -- the truly confidential
parts -- be done in a private forum echoed to ooo-private.  So it
would not be in public view.  See above, #3, in case you missed it.


View raw message