openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: An invitation to committers to the OOo Community Forums
Date Sun, 04 Sep 2011 17:38:28 GMT
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Terry Ellison <> wrote:
> On 04/09/11 17:47, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>>> It might be different to discuss roughly at the dev forums were most
>>>> people know each other than in a public message boards were even my
>>>> grandmother might participate. At this project I heard the term "end
>>>> users" very often; I don't think you can use the same rules of heavy
>>>> geek-discussion for end users of OpenOffice.
>>> I agree.  But I think that just means that support forum
>>> admins/moderators bring such discussions over here, to the project
>>> mailing lists.  Honestly, if a forum volunteer is not already on this
>>> list, understanding what we are doing and how Apache project works and
>>> how the code base is developing, etc., then they will have a very
>>> difficult time fairly representing the project to the users.  I don't
>>> think the project benefits if support volunteers are detached from the
>>> primary project discussion list.
>> +1
> -0.75 Actually they don't really need to understand anything about how
> Apache works or how the code-base is developing.  They do end-user support.
>  The only need to understand how the product /as released and shipped/
> operates for the end-users.  Knowing about futures is a very low priority
> nice-to-have.

And they need to know that information on the day a new release comes
out, so they can answer questions that come on day 1 of that new

We've also had discussions on this list of doing more substantial
runtime integration of documentation and support, to benefit the
users.  This will require discussion and effort by support, doc,
infrastructure and others.  That kind of discussion happens here.

>>> And we all are at a disadvantage if
>>> the support volunteers are not contributing to this list.  The same
>>> arguments against fragmenting the project into dozens of mailing
>>> lists, also apply here.  Just as we would not create a separate
>>> ooo-support-operations-discuss mailing list, we should not encourage
>>> the same from happening via a forum.  The fact that support operations
>>> are also discussed in private only makes this fragmentation more
>>> problematic.
>>> This is really easy to resolve:
>>> 1) Discussions on evolving forum policies and rules must occur on
>>> ooo-dev.  These are tantamount to proposals, and they are subject to
>>> Apache Way decision making, just like any other part of the project.
>>> If I wanted to suggest a different editing policy for the community
>>> wiki, or a new moderation policy for ooo-users, I would be slapped
>>> down if I raised it on ooo-private.  The transparency principle
>>> applies equally to the forums.
>>> 2) Non-confidential, day-to-day operations of the forum should occur
>>> in a publicly-readable forum, or on a new public mailing list. I'd let
>>> the forum volunteers decide which.
>>> 3) Private discussions on confidential matters, including your
>>> grandmother, occur either on ooo-private or on a private forum that
>>> echos its posts to ooo-private.  Again, I'd let the forum volunteers
>>> decide which.
>> +1
> -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