openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: What is needed for Support Forums to be fully integrated into the Apache project
Date Mon, 05 Sep 2011 18:35:07 GMT

On 5 Sep 2011, at 19:00, Reizinger Zoltán wrote:
>> ==Approval of Forum roles==
>> My understanding is that forums have essentially three roles:
>> a) Users
>> b) Moderators, who delete, edit and move all posts, ban users, etc.
>> c) Admins who can also create new forums and assign moderator rights
> Volunteers not listed, who contribute in posts with their special knowledge.
>> 5) Users require no special treatment.  They are like subscribers to a
>> users list.
>> 6) Being listed as an "admin" or "moderator" on a public-facing Apache
>> website suggests endorsement by the project, and aside from any
>> enhanced Forum capabilities enhances your ability to keep order on the
>> Forums.  In other words, it is the star that makes the sheriff, not
>> the gun.  But this endorsement, to be meaningful, should be made
>> authentic.   So Admins and Moderators should be approved by the PPMC.
>> This kind of routine approval is given all the time for those who want
>> to be list moderators.  I see no reason why we cannot, initially at
>> least, simply receive a list of current volunteers to ooo-private and
>> approve them all.
> -1
> Simple users became volunteers when he/she gives many useful comments to users not worth
anything on this list.
> You and all commiters on this list will approve Hungarian moderators without knowing
how they works?
> You will learn Hungarian and all twelve forum languages? Some moderators, and most volunteers
even not reading English.
> How the PPMC will endorse them?
>> 7) Future grants of admin/moderator rights would require a proposal to
>> ooo-dev seeking lazy consensus.  Such a proposal could originate from
>> a forum volunteer or could originate from anyone on ooo-dev. This is
>> no different than someone asking to be a moderator for a mailing list.
> -1
> Same as above, language barrier.

My experience elsewhere at Apache is that PMCs are pretty open and trusting. If there's a
recommendation for further involve a valued contributor requiring lazy concensus, I'd expect
them to all go through, unless there's someone proposed who's known to be problematic. The
important thing is really procedural... the fact that the PMC approves someone makes it clear
that the PMC has responsibility for keeping the forums healthy.

>> 8) Any project committer, on request, will be made a forum admin or
>> moderator.
> +1
> But needs to work as a moderator and admin on forum, if they require such role.

While that's certainly desirable, if PMC members need this kind of access to provide oversight,
then they need to be able to get access regardless. This seems less likely to be required
if there's separate archival as suggested below.

>>  This is how it works with every other project resource --
>> mailing lists, source code, website, etc.   Committers have rights to
>> pretty much everything on the project.  We trust our committers. We
>> don't segregate the project into exclusive zones of ownership.
> -1
> It is a misunderstanding of closed forums.

Perhaps you could elaborate on this?

>> ==Transparency==
>> 9) We need all private forum discussions to be echoed to a log or
>> mailing list where PPMC and Apache Members can view them.
> If you join as mod. or admin you can see it.

If the forums are running on ASF infrastructure delegated to the PMC, the PMC and ASF membership
need a mechanism to provide oversight. This is commonly done via mailing lists, and so repeating
that pattern would simplify this task for many.

>>  One way of
>> doing this is to echo posts to ooo-private.  Another way is to
>> periodically commit logs to the PPMC's private directory.  There may
>> be other ways as well.
> -1
> The private list will be "spammed" unnecessarily, by forums posts.

Yeah, i'd suggest a separate archival list

>> 10) The use of private forums must be used for only discussions of
>> specific moderation cases.  It must not be used for discussion of
>> routine board operations.
> +1

View raw message