openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: Dissatisfaction amongst the community admins, moderators and volunteers
Date Sun, 04 Sep 2011 18:03:55 GMT

To the best of my ability I am trying to express
the true concerns of the org, as I have come to
know them over my time here.  At this time I don't
see the need for any major changes to the status
quo (if it ain't broke don't fix it).  Just trying
to convey what the organizational requirements actually
are, not to insist that anything be done to accomodate
them *right now*.

Of course it'd be smart to allow anyone from the
infrastructure team to inspect those forums, but as
a practical matter most of us are already members of
the org.  And I take Terry's offer towards ooo
committers at face-value that it is a standing offer
good for the lifetime of the project.


>From: drew <>
>To: Joe Schaefer <>
>Cc: "" <>
>Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2011 1:56 PM
>Subject: Re: Dissatisfaction amongst the community admins, moderators and volunteers
>On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 10:36 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Being a member-based organization the ASF requires
>> that all foundation activities be subject to member
>> scrutiny (with only a handful of operational exceptions).
>> I would be perfectly satisfied if the private forums
>> are fully archived and made available to any ASF member on
>> request, without undue delay.
>Hi Joe,
>I'm in the middle of drafting a few other messages - but I'll stop and
>quickly comment here now - steps will be taken this afternoon to try and
>accommodate the concerns of all parties here, ASF, AOOo PPMC and the
>Volunteer group.
>The ML will be kept fully abreast of these actions as they happen.
>Just everyone, please, slow down for a moment and take a breath.
>Drew Jensen
>> >________________________________
>> >From: Simon Phipps <>
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2011 11:14 AM
>> >Subject: Re: Dissatisfaction amongst the community admins, moderators and volunteers
>> >
>> >On Sep 4, 2011 3:45 PM, "Rob Weir" <> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't think discussions about how the project is run is something
>> >> that we should be doing in private.  Discussing such matters, even if
>> >> strong opinions are raised, is the essence of transparency.  Remember,
>> >> controversial is not the same as confidential.  In Apache projects we
>> >> discuss non-confidential matters openly.
>> >
>> >... unless they are on the PPMC private list, when that royal "we" no longer
>> >includes everyone here. I believe Terry and others are saying that the
>> >(independent) forum community has a similar approach, with a private forum
>> >for sensitive matters. I also believe that in the interests of that very
>> >transparency you and others are invited to participate in that place as a
>> >transitional activity.
>> >
>> >What exactly is the problem here?
>> >
>> >S.
>> >
>> >
>> >
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message