Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E049273EC for ; Sun, 4 Sep 2011 16:35:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 92871 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2011 16:35:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 92728 invoked by uid 500); 4 Sep 2011 16:35:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 92720 invoked by uid 99); 4 Sep 2011 16:35:08 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 04 Sep 2011 16:35:08 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-ew0-f47.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username robweir, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 04 Sep 2011 16:35:07 +0000 Received: by ewy5 with SMTP id 5so1973219ewy.6 for ; Sun, 04 Sep 2011 09:35:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.17.151 with SMTP id j23mr900710eej.61.1315154105818; Sun, 04 Sep 2011 09:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.188.15 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Sep 2011 09:35:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4E5FB6F0.2060504@ellisons.org.uk> <4E5FC756.5010106@ellisons.org.uk> <4E5FD55C.40207@ellisons.org.uk> <4E5FE090.2020506@apache.org> <014801cc68e5$d5fd5290$81f7f7b0$@acm.org> <1314911707.1938.55.camel@sybil> <4E60193C.4090304@shanecurcuru.org> <4E606C19.40005@ellisons.org.uk> Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 12:35:05 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: An invitation to committers to the OOo Community Forums From: Rob Weir To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Donald Whytock wrote= : >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >>> Do you really want to discuss a users behavior in public? >>> Wow, I really don't want to do that. I strongly believe that only a >>> few people would discuss another guys behavior in public. >> >> It happens. =C2=A0In fact it happened here, on this list, yesterday. =C2= =A0There >> was some pretty excessive vitriol, open and in public. =C2=A0And yet it >> seemed to work into more mature and rational discussion today. >> >> If behavior discussions are going to occur at all, it's probably >> better that they happen in public rather than there be the feeling of >> a secret faceless committee to which users can neither respond nor >> appeal. =C2=A0The latter can lead to discontent. > > 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. 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. -Rob