Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4E63BD2B.7070104@ellisons.org.uk>
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>
	<4E63BD2B.7070104@ellisons.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 14:13:26 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAP-ksoiw3=i-1_QXRwXrcb=ZR1tK-6kzqQoRSJ0K21c_GF+YQA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Dissatisfaction amongst the community admins,
 moderators and volunteers
From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Terry Ellison <Terry@ellisons.org.uk> wrote=
:
> On 04/09/11 18:36, 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.
>
> +1
> I personally agree that we should have the absolute minimum as world-no
> access, and clear and valid reasons to limit such access. =C2=A0I think t=
hat it's
> something that we could sell to the community. =C2=A0 The main hassle is =
trolls
> and flamers posting into the moderation forums, so it would be better to
> limit write access.
>

I'd distinguish private forums where you discuss
confidential/sensitive matters from public forums where forum
volunteers discuss evolution of policies, future directions, etc., and
reach consensus on these topics.

For the private forums you have no need to fear trolls or flamers,
right?  In theory, we could get a troll post to ooo-private, but I've
never seen that happen.

As for the other forum, the public forum, I see no place for a
read-only public forum where volunteers discuss things but the general
public cannot post.  If they flame or otherwise abuse the forum, then
moderate them.  That is one of your competencies.

> I don't think that granting any ASF member read or read/write access to
> *all* forums would be an issue as long as they broadly respect the rules =
of
> the forum.
>

The rules of the forum are subject to PPMC review and approval, just
like any other part of the project. So I think it would be very
unlikely that there would be a conflict between Apache Member
expectations and forum rules.

> Both of these options are reasonable and therefore could be quickly "sold=
"
> to the community, IMHO. =C2=A0However, this is a very different and easie=
r pitch
> than the hard line that Rob proposes.
>
> It would also be possible for someone to develop (as Rob suggests) a feed
> from such forums into a DL such as ooo-private. =C2=A0However, this would=
 be a
> non-trivial bit of custom code development as this isn't standard phpBB
> functionality and the Logical Data Model for a rich-text Topic/Post parad=
igm
> would require a bit of massage to flatten into a plain text email format.
> =C2=A0We might have resourcing issues here.
>

I think we need this part as well.  Remember, Joe was speaking from a
Member perspective.  I am speaking from a PPMC perspective.  There are
similar, but non-identical concerns here.

>