Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=DZ+PY9B9pEn8Eg6rLaLr3982SkhsJ4QQlxA9jXlpgJhfuM8v/QCF0s5gJ9lb1ICCpv4Lg+k1ubx0Y39hJ1PrmM5jeiCwV5zvs/ZQ9nC/XE/Msj6qxs532/T80FGdRpCl6Kmy1dPjo/eDVliENloNfFofiwAhopGotALCUVHuYoA=;
References: <4E6361AE.3070907@ellisons.org.uk>
  <CAP-ksoh62Vqb9VYp26VkqaHvr5O55-vesa32qK5qow=DCyOehA@mail.gmail.com>
  <4E638B48.9020200@ellisons.org.uk>
  <CAP-ksoggKBhy80YGxPEFuqSe=4aHtOLCOv6eOukxe4mwQtwzgA@mail.gmail.com>
  <CAA4ffp-ybjGS5TWmOHumid9XgDyU_pPFF0OodvUMMMyczNa7ow@mail.gmail.com>
  <1315157787.63820.YahooMailNeo@web161423.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <1315159012.15159.26.camel@sybil>
Message-ID: <1315159435.71863.YahooMailNeo@web161425.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 11:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Dissatisfaction amongst the community admins,
 moderators and volunteers
To: drew <drew@baseanswers.com>
Cc: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <1315159012.15159.26.camel@sybil>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="1582963009-2126134148-1315159435=:71863"

--1582963009-2126134148-1315159435=:71863
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Drew,=0A=0ATo the best of my ability I am trying to express=0Athe true conc=
erns of the org, as I have come to=0Aknow them over my time here.=A0 At thi=
s time I don't=0Asee the need for any major changes to the status=0Aquo (if=
 it ain't broke don't fix it).=A0 Just trying=0Ato convey what the organiza=
tional requirements actually=0Aare, not to insist that anything be done to =
accomodate=0Athem *right now*.=0A=0A=0AOf course it'd be smart to allow any=
one from the=0Ainfrastructure team to inspect those forums, but as=0Aa prac=
tical matter most of us are already members of=0Athe org.=A0 And I take Ter=
ry's offer towards ooo=0Acommitters at face-value that it is a standing off=
er=0Agood for the lifetime of the project.=0A=0APeace.=0A=0A=0A>___________=
_____________________=0A>From: drew <drew@baseanswers.com>=0A>To: Joe Schae=
fer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>=0A>Cc: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <ooo-dev=
@incubator.apache.org>=0A>Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2011 1:56 PM=0A>Subjec=
t: Re: Dissatisfaction amongst the community admins, moderators and volunte=
ers=0A>=0A>On Sun, 2011-09-04 at 10:36 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:=0A>> Bein=
g a member-based organization the ASF requires=0A>> that all foundation act=
ivities be subject to member=0A>> scrutiny (with only a handful of operatio=
nal exceptions).=0A>> =0A>> I would be perfectly satisfied if the private f=
orums=0A>> are fully archived and made available to any ASF member on=0A>> =
request, without undue delay.=0A>=0A>Hi Joe,=0A>=0A>I'm in the middle of dr=
afting a few other messages - but I'll stop and=0A>quickly comment here now=
 - steps will be taken this afternoon to try and=0A>accommodate the concern=
s of all parties here, ASF, AOOo PPMC and the=0A>Volunteer group.=0A>=0A>Th=
e ML will be kept fully abreast of these actions as they happen.=0A>=0A>Jus=
t everyone, please, slow down for a moment and take a breath.=0A>=0A>Sincer=
ely,=0A>=0A>Drew Jensen=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> =0A>> >_________=
_______________________=0A>> >From: Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com>=0A>> >=
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org=0A>> >Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2011 11:1=
4 AM=0A>> >Subject: Re: Dissatisfaction amongst the community admins, moder=
ators and volunteers=0A>> >=0A>> >On Sep 4, 2011 3:45 PM, "Rob Weir" <robwe=
ir@apache.org> wrote:=0A>> >=0A>> >> I don't think discussions about how th=
e project is run is something=0A>> >> that we should be doing in private.=
=A0 Discussing such matters, even if=0A>> >> strong opinions are raised, is=
 the essence of transparency.=A0 Remember,=0A>> >> controversial is not the=
 same as confidential.=A0 In Apache projects we=0A>> >> discuss non-confide=
ntial matters openly.=0A>> >=0A>> >... unless they are on the PPMC private =
list, when that royal "we" no longer=0A>> >includes everyone here. I believ=
e Terry and others are saying that the=0A>> >(independent) forum community =
has a similar approach, with a private forum=0A>> >for sensitive matters. I=
 also believe that in the interests of that very=0A>> >transparency you and=
 others are invited to participate in that place as a=0A>> >transitional ac=
tivity.=0A>> >=0A>> >What exactly is the problem here?=0A>> >=0A>> >S.=0A>>=
 >=0A>> >=0A>> >=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>
--1582963009-2126134148-1315159435=:71863--