You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org> on 2011/07/22 05:10:20 UTC
[DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
There are 20 Initial Committers on the OpenOffice.org incubator proposal who have not yet submitted iCLAs or informed us of their intention not to do so.
Today I used the following format for a message to one of those Initial Committers.
Before 19 more of these are sent out I wanted to check how understandable this is.
I am particularly concerned for how clear this is for those who are not native English speakers.
I welcome your advice.
- Dennis
*** specimen message ***
From: <PPMC member>
Sent: <today>
To: <Initial Committer lacking iCLA so far>
Cc: ooo-private@incubator.apache.org
Subject: <Initial Committer Name>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
Hello <Initial Committer Name>,
You are listed as an Initial Committer on the proposal for the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator project.
The incubator project was accepted by Apache on 2011-06-13.
As an Initial Committer you are invited to be established as a committer on the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator podling. You are also invited to serve on the Podling Project Management Committee after you are established as a committer.
The prerequisite to becoming established as a committer is to register an iCLA agreement with Apache.
Our records indicate that no iCLA has been received from you.
If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to <oo...@incubator.apache.org>. We will then know not wait for it.
If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need before the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
For more information and iCLA/CCLA forms, go to <http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>. Complete instructions for submission of an iCLA is at the top of the form (text or PDF).
We welcome your contribution to the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator project.
- the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC)
*** end of specimen message ***
RE: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I found the answer to this but I couldn't find this message in the stack!
I checked the subscribers to ooo-dev as of 2011-07-24.
I could only match two of the ooo-dev subscribers to Initial Committers whose iCLAs had not been received by that date.
There might be a handful more that are on ooo-dev with a different e-mail address than the one on the incubator proposal.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:apache@robweir.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 11:31
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> There are 20 Initial Committers on the OpenOffice.org incubator proposal who have not yet submitted iCLAs or informed us of their intention not to do so.
>
> Today I used the following format for a message to one of those Initial Committers.
>
> Before 19 more of these are sent out I wanted to check how understandable this is.
>
Dennis, looking at the 19 who have not responded and the subscribers
to the list, do you have a sense of how many fit into these
categories:
1) Never showed up at all. No iCLA, not subscribed to ooo-dev, heard
nothing from them at all?
2) Signed up on the list, but inactive
3) Signed up and active on the list.
> I am particularly concerned for how clear this is for those who are not native English speakers.
>
> I welcome your advice.
>
> - Dennis
>
> *** specimen message ***
>
> From: <PPMC member>
> Sent: <today>
> To: <Initial Committer lacking iCLA so far>
> Cc: ooo-private@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: <Initial Committer Name>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
>
> Hello <Initial Committer Name>,
>
> You are listed as an Initial Committer on the proposal for the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>
> The incubator project was accepted by Apache on 2011-06-13.
>
> As an Initial Committer you are invited to be established as a committer on the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator podling. You are also invited to serve on the Podling Project Management Committee after you are established as a committer.
>
> The prerequisite to becoming established as a committer is to register an iCLA agreement with Apache.
>
> Our records indicate that no iCLA has been received from you.
>
> If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to <oo...@incubator.apache.org>. We will then know not wait for it.
>
> If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need before the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
>
> For more information and iCLA/CCLA forms, go to <http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>. Complete instructions for submission of an iCLA is at the top of the form (text or PDF).
>
> We welcome your contribution to the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>
> - the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC)
>
> *** end of specimen message ***
>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> There are 20 Initial Committers on the OpenOffice.org incubator proposal who have not yet submitted iCLAs or informed us of their intention not to do so.
>
> Today I used the following format for a message to one of those Initial Committers.
>
> Before 19 more of these are sent out I wanted to check how understandable this is.
>
Dennis, looking at the 19 who have not responded and the subscribers
to the list, do you have a sense of how many fit into these
categories:
1) Never showed up at all. No iCLA, not subscribed to ooo-dev, heard
nothing from them at all?
2) Signed up on the list, but inactive
3) Signed up and active on the list.
> I am particularly concerned for how clear this is for those who are not native English speakers.
>
> I welcome your advice.
>
> - Dennis
>
> *** specimen message ***
>
> From: <PPMC member>
> Sent: <today>
> To: <Initial Committer lacking iCLA so far>
> Cc: ooo-private@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: <Initial Committer Name>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
>
> Hello <Initial Committer Name>,
>
> You are listed as an Initial Committer on the proposal for the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>
> The incubator project was accepted by Apache on 2011-06-13.
>
> As an Initial Committer you are invited to be established as a committer on the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator podling. You are also invited to serve on the Podling Project Management Committee after you are established as a committer.
>
> The prerequisite to becoming established as a committer is to register an iCLA agreement with Apache.
>
> Our records indicate that no iCLA has been received from you.
>
> If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to <oo...@incubator.apache.org>. We will then know not wait for it.
>
> If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need before the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
>
> For more information and iCLA/CCLA forms, go to <http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>. Complete instructions for submission of an iCLA is at the top of the form (text or PDF).
>
> We welcome your contribution to the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>
> - the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC)
>
> *** end of specimen message ***
>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Stephan Bergmann <
stephan.bergmann.secondary@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2011, at 5:10 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to <
> ooo-private@incubator.apache.org>. We will then know not wait for it.
> >
> > If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to
> ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need
> before the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
>
> I would rephrase the beginnings of those two paragraphs as "If you choose
> not to submit an iCLA, …" and "Otherwise, if you do intend to submit an
> iCLA, …," respectively. (And "not wait for it" lacks a "to.")
>
>
with this proposed changes it sounds good and it is fine to contact the
initial committers who haven't shown up so far.
Juergen
> -Stephan
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
Posted by Stephan Bergmann <st...@googlemail.com>.
On Jul 22, 2011, at 5:10 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to <oo...@incubator.apache.org>. We will then know not wait for it.
>
> If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need before the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
I would rephrase the beginnings of those two paragraphs as "If you choose not to submit an iCLA, …" and "Otherwise, if you do intend to submit an iCLA, …," respectively. (And "not wait for it" lacks a "to.")
-Stephan
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Your proposal doesn't say how long we will wait. IMHO we should define a
deadline when the status as "initial committer" is no longer given.
Maybe end of July is too short but in any case it should be end of
August. Then the people had 3 months time to say anything. This should
cover any vacation time.
My 2 ct.
Marcus
Am 07/22/2011 05:10 AM, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> There are 20 Initial Committers on the OpenOffice.org incubator proposal who have not yet submitted iCLAs or informed us of their intention not to do so.
>
> Today I used the following format for a message to one of those Initial Committers.
>
> Before 19 more of these are sent out I wanted to check how understandable this is.
>
> I am particularly concerned for how clear this is for those who are not native English speakers.
>
> I welcome your advice.
>
> - Dennis
>
> *** specimen message ***
>
> From:<PPMC member>
> Sent:<today>
> To:<Initial Committer lacking iCLA so far>
> Cc: ooo-private@incubator.apache.org
> Subject:<Initial Committer Name>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
>
> Hello<Initial Committer Name>,
>
> You are listed as an Initial Committer on the proposal for the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>
> The incubator project was accepted by Apache on 2011-06-13.
>
> As an Initial Committer you are invited to be established as a committer on the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator podling. You are also invited to serve on the Podling Project Management Committee after you are established as a committer.
>
> The prerequisite to becoming established as a committer is to register an iCLA agreement with Apache.
>
> Our records indicate that no iCLA has been received from you.
>
> If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to<oo...@incubator.apache.org>. We will then know not wait for it.
>
> If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need before the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
>
> For more information and iCLA/CCLA forms, go to<http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>. Complete instructions for submission of an iCLA is at the top of the form (text or PDF).
>
> We welcome your contribution to the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>
> - the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC)
>
> *** end of specimen message ***
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 07/23/2011 05:11 PM, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>
> On Jul 23, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>>> Let me ask the question in reverse: how long do you think that we should leave the door open, no questions asked? Why?
>>>
>>
>> I was thinking September 15th.
>
> +1 - That's about 3 months since the start.
OK, to come to a deadline: +1
Marcus
>> If we have not heard at all from
>> someone it may be an indication that they are traveling, on holiday,
>> and don't have access to email. August is a big vacation month. So
>> I'd wait for that to pass.
>>
>> We should also consider the possibility that someone is not responding
>> for other reasons than vacations. Maybe we have the wrong email
>> address? Or they are confused by our notes due to language
>> differences?
>>
>>> Remember, Initial Committers are grandfathered in as committers and members of the PPMC without being here and demonstrating commitment through their contributions. It is not even a matter of them being voted in based on existing reputation. (I'm one of those myself.)
>>>
>>
>> Commitment starts with showing up. I don't have problems with
>> withdrawing a committer invitation of someone who never shows up,
>> provided we have given them ample opportunity.
>>
>>> At some point, one wants to be complete with intake of initial committers and working toward a full-fledged meritocracy instead. I suspect it is possible that the PPMC will also shrink if those who are already on it do not eventually demonstrate a commitment that would have qualified them in the ordinary way.
>>>
>>
>> I'd do that on an entirely different timescale. We have committers
>> with a range of skills and interests, and some of these will require a
>> full product cycle to show themselves. For example, a UI designer
>> will be more active at the design stage, a QA person once we have a
>> build, a coder once we have source code, etc.
>>
>>> At what point does holding out that special status to those who have not shown up become a point too far. In this case, we are talking about folks who have not submitted an iCLA and not responded to requests to submit them and, as far as I know, have not appeared on ooo-dev. Even if we withdraw the Initial Committer invitations at some point, there is no barrier to becoming a contributor and demonstrating commitment to the project. It's not fatal.
>>>
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> I propose to ask each of these absent Initial Committers whether they intend to submit an iCLA and how much time they want to do that. It is a simple request. There are any number of possible responses. I assume we will deal with the responses on an individual basis. If they do not intend to submit an iCLA, it would be useful to know, so we don't have to be expecting them, watching for the iCLA to arrive, etc.
>>>
>>
>> Good idea. Another source of delay, in addition to vacations, is
>> corporate legal review, for those who need to go through it. For
>> contributors who jobs are transitioning, this may have additional
>> complexities. I think we should be flexible in such cases.
>>
>>> My goal is having them show up. And if they are not going to show up, I would like to know that. Then we can tell when we have a full roster of Initial Committers that are ready and willing as they signaled they were.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Wolf Halton [mailto:wolf.halton@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 20:32
>>> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: RE: [DISCUSS]<Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
>>>
>>> What is the technical or social stressor causing this issue to be framed in
>>> this time-sensitive language?
>>> Wolf
>>>
>>> On Jul 22, 2011 4:40 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton"<de...@acm.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I did not include a time limit, because we had not agreed on one. Instead,
>>> I made the request to indicate whether they intended to submit an iCLA and
>>> how much time they would need (for whatever review reasons or other
>>> determinations involved).
>>>>
>>>> These Initial Committers were already sent a bulk e-mail on June 23.
>>>>
>>>> Why would we not expect the Initial Committers who signed up by June 10 to
>>> report whether they intend to actually become committers? It is about their
>>> commitment, it seems to me. And they always have the opportunity to become
>>> committers by showing up and contributing, the same as for anyone who is not
>>> an Initial Committer.
>>>>
>>>> My thought was to wait 15-30 days after we approach all of them
>>> individually and then send a follow-up to ones who have not responded at all
>>> indicating that the invitation to become committers and PPMC members is
>>> being withdrawn. (Assuming we decide to do that and set such a date.)
>>>>
>>>> I would make the changes that Stephen Bergmann recommended.
>>>>
>>>> More feedback and discussion, please.
>>>>
>>>> - Dennis
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Juan C. Sanz [mailto:juancsanzc@hotmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 12:28
>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]<Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
>>> Committer Status
>>>>
>>>> El 22/07/2011 5:10, Dennis E. Hamilton escribió:
>>>>> There are 20 Initial Committers on the OpenOffice.org incubator proposal
>>> who have not yet submitted iCLAs or informed us of their intention not to do
>>> so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today I used the following format for a message to one of those Initial
>>> Committers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Before 19 more of these are sent out I wanted to check how understandable
>>> this is.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am particularly concerned for how clear this is for those who are not
>>> native English speakers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I welcome your advice.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dennis
>>>>>
>>>>> *** specimen message ***
>>>>>
>>>>> From:<PPMC member>
>>>>> Sent:<today>
>>>>> To:<Initial Committer lacking iCLA so far>
>>>>> Cc: ooo-private@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Subject:<Initial Committer Name>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer
>>> Status
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello<Initial Committer Name>,
>>>>>
>>>>> You are listed as an Initial Committer on the proposal for the Apache
>>> OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>>>>>
>>>>> The incubator project was accepted by Apache on 2011-06-13.
>>>>>
>>>>> As an Initial Committer you are invited to be established as a committer
>>> on the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator podling. You are also invited to
>>> serve on the Podling Project Management Committee after you are established
>>> as a committer.
>>>>>
>>>>> The prerequisite to becoming established as a committer is to register an
>>> iCLA agreement with Apache.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our records indicate that no iCLA has been received from you.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to<
>>> ooo-private@incubator.apache.org>. We will then know not wait for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to
>>> ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need before
>>> the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
>>>>>
>>>>> For more information and iCLA/CCLA forms, go to<
>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>. Complete instructions for submission
>>> of an iCLA is at the top of the form (text or PDF).
>>>>>
>>>>> We welcome your contribution to the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator
>>> project.
>>>>>
>>>>> - the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator Podling Project Management
>>> Committee (PPMC)
>>>>>
>>>>> *** end of specimen message ***
>>>>>
>>>> I think it's understundandable. But, what is the next step? how long do
>>>> we wait for the user id?
>>>> Regards.
>>>> Juan C. Sanz
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jul 23, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>> Let me ask the question in reverse: how long do you think that we should leave the door open, no questions asked? Why?
>>
>
> I was thinking September 15th.
+1 - That's about 3 months since the start.
Regards,
Dave
> If we have not heard at all from
> someone it may be an indication that they are traveling, on holiday,
> and don't have access to email. August is a big vacation month. So
> I'd wait for that to pass.
>
> We should also consider the possibility that someone is not responding
> for other reasons than vacations. Maybe we have the wrong email
> address? Or they are confused by our notes due to language
> differences?
>
>> Remember, Initial Committers are grandfathered in as committers and members of the PPMC without being here and demonstrating commitment through their contributions. It is not even a matter of them being voted in based on existing reputation. (I'm one of those myself.)
>>
>
> Commitment starts with showing up. I don't have problems with
> withdrawing a committer invitation of someone who never shows up,
> provided we have given them ample opportunity.
>
>> At some point, one wants to be complete with intake of initial committers and working toward a full-fledged meritocracy instead. I suspect it is possible that the PPMC will also shrink if those who are already on it do not eventually demonstrate a commitment that would have qualified them in the ordinary way.
>>
>
> I'd do that on an entirely different timescale. We have committers
> with a range of skills and interests, and some of these will require a
> full product cycle to show themselves. For example, a UI designer
> will be more active at the design stage, a QA person once we have a
> build, a coder once we have source code, etc.
>
>> At what point does holding out that special status to those who have not shown up become a point too far. In this case, we are talking about folks who have not submitted an iCLA and not responded to requests to submit them and, as far as I know, have not appeared on ooo-dev. Even if we withdraw the Initial Committer invitations at some point, there is no barrier to becoming a contributor and demonstrating commitment to the project. It's not fatal.
>>
>
> Right.
>
>> I propose to ask each of these absent Initial Committers whether they intend to submit an iCLA and how much time they want to do that. It is a simple request. There are any number of possible responses. I assume we will deal with the responses on an individual basis. If they do not intend to submit an iCLA, it would be useful to know, so we don't have to be expecting them, watching for the iCLA to arrive, etc.
>>
>
> Good idea. Another source of delay, in addition to vacations, is
> corporate legal review, for those who need to go through it. For
> contributors who jobs are transitioning, this may have additional
> complexities. I think we should be flexible in such cases.
>
>> My goal is having them show up. And if they are not going to show up, I would like to know that. Then we can tell when we have a full roster of Initial Committers that are ready and willing as they signaled they were.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wolf Halton [mailto:wolf.halton@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 20:32
>> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: RE: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
>>
>> What is the technical or social stressor causing this issue to be framed in
>> this time-sensitive language?
>> Wolf
>>
>> On Jul 22, 2011 4:40 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>
>> wrote:
>>> I did not include a time limit, because we had not agreed on one. Instead,
>> I made the request to indicate whether they intended to submit an iCLA and
>> how much time they would need (for whatever review reasons or other
>> determinations involved).
>>>
>>> These Initial Committers were already sent a bulk e-mail on June 23.
>>>
>>> Why would we not expect the Initial Committers who signed up by June 10 to
>> report whether they intend to actually become committers? It is about their
>> commitment, it seems to me. And they always have the opportunity to become
>> committers by showing up and contributing, the same as for anyone who is not
>> an Initial Committer.
>>>
>>> My thought was to wait 15-30 days after we approach all of them
>> individually and then send a follow-up to ones who have not responded at all
>> indicating that the invitation to become committers and PPMC members is
>> being withdrawn. (Assuming we decide to do that and set such a date.)
>>>
>>> I would make the changes that Stephen Bergmann recommended.
>>>
>>> More feedback and discussion, please.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Juan C. Sanz [mailto:juancsanzc@hotmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 12:28
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
>> Committer Status
>>>
>>> El 22/07/2011 5:10, Dennis E. Hamilton escribió:
>>>> There are 20 Initial Committers on the OpenOffice.org incubator proposal
>> who have not yet submitted iCLAs or informed us of their intention not to do
>> so.
>>>>
>>>> Today I used the following format for a message to one of those Initial
>> Committers.
>>>>
>>>> Before 19 more of these are sent out I wanted to check how understandable
>> this is.
>>>>
>>>> I am particularly concerned for how clear this is for those who are not
>> native English speakers.
>>>>
>>>> I welcome your advice.
>>>>
>>>> - Dennis
>>>>
>>>> *** specimen message ***
>>>>
>>>> From:<PPMC member>
>>>> Sent:<today>
>>>> To:<Initial Committer lacking iCLA so far>
>>>> Cc: ooo-private@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject:<Initial Committer Name>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer
>> Status
>>>>
>>>> Hello<Initial Committer Name>,
>>>>
>>>> You are listed as an Initial Committer on the proposal for the Apache
>> OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>>>>
>>>> The incubator project was accepted by Apache on 2011-06-13.
>>>>
>>>> As an Initial Committer you are invited to be established as a committer
>> on the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator podling. You are also invited to
>> serve on the Podling Project Management Committee after you are established
>> as a committer.
>>>>
>>>> The prerequisite to becoming established as a committer is to register an
>> iCLA agreement with Apache.
>>>>
>>>> Our records indicate that no iCLA has been received from you.
>>>>
>>>> If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to<
>> ooo-private@incubator.apache.org>. We will then know not wait for it.
>>>>
>>>> If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to
>> ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need before
>> the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
>>>>
>>>> For more information and iCLA/CCLA forms, go to<
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>. Complete instructions for submission
>> of an iCLA is at the top of the form (text or PDF).
>>>>
>>>> We welcome your contribution to the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator
>> project.
>>>>
>>>> - the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator Podling Project Management
>> Committee (PPMC)
>>>>
>>>> *** end of specimen message ***
>>>>
>>> I think it's understundandable. But, what is the next step? how long do
>>> we wait for the user id?
>>> Regards.
>>> Juan C. Sanz
>>>
>>
>>
Re: RE: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> Let me ask the question in reverse: how long do you think that we should leave the door open, no questions asked? Why?
>
I was thinking September 15th. If we have not heard at all from
someone it may be an indication that they are traveling, on holiday,
and don't have access to email. August is a big vacation month. So
I'd wait for that to pass.
We should also consider the possibility that someone is not responding
for other reasons than vacations. Maybe we have the wrong email
address? Or they are confused by our notes due to language
differences?
> Remember, Initial Committers are grandfathered in as committers and members of the PPMC without being here and demonstrating commitment through their contributions. It is not even a matter of them being voted in based on existing reputation. (I'm one of those myself.)
>
Commitment starts with showing up. I don't have problems with
withdrawing a committer invitation of someone who never shows up,
provided we have given them ample opportunity.
> At some point, one wants to be complete with intake of initial committers and working toward a full-fledged meritocracy instead. I suspect it is possible that the PPMC will also shrink if those who are already on it do not eventually demonstrate a commitment that would have qualified them in the ordinary way.
>
I'd do that on an entirely different timescale. We have committers
with a range of skills and interests, and some of these will require a
full product cycle to show themselves. For example, a UI designer
will be more active at the design stage, a QA person once we have a
build, a coder once we have source code, etc.
> At what point does holding out that special status to those who have not shown up become a point too far. In this case, we are talking about folks who have not submitted an iCLA and not responded to requests to submit them and, as far as I know, have not appeared on ooo-dev. Even if we withdraw the Initial Committer invitations at some point, there is no barrier to becoming a contributor and demonstrating commitment to the project. It's not fatal.
>
Right.
> I propose to ask each of these absent Initial Committers whether they intend to submit an iCLA and how much time they want to do that. It is a simple request. There are any number of possible responses. I assume we will deal with the responses on an individual basis. If they do not intend to submit an iCLA, it would be useful to know, so we don't have to be expecting them, watching for the iCLA to arrive, etc.
>
Good idea. Another source of delay, in addition to vacations, is
corporate legal review, for those who need to go through it. For
contributors who jobs are transitioning, this may have additional
complexities. I think we should be flexible in such cases.
> My goal is having them show up. And if they are not going to show up, I would like to know that. Then we can tell when we have a full roster of Initial Committers that are ready and willing as they signaled they were.
>
> - Dennis
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolf Halton [mailto:wolf.halton@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 20:32
> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RE: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
>
> What is the technical or social stressor causing this issue to be framed in
> this time-sensitive language?
> Wolf
>
> On Jul 22, 2011 4:40 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>
> wrote:
>> I did not include a time limit, because we had not agreed on one. Instead,
> I made the request to indicate whether they intended to submit an iCLA and
> how much time they would need (for whatever review reasons or other
> determinations involved).
>>
>> These Initial Committers were already sent a bulk e-mail on June 23.
>>
>> Why would we not expect the Initial Committers who signed up by June 10 to
> report whether they intend to actually become committers? It is about their
> commitment, it seems to me. And they always have the opportunity to become
> committers by showing up and contributing, the same as for anyone who is not
> an Initial Committer.
>>
>> My thought was to wait 15-30 days after we approach all of them
> individually and then send a follow-up to ones who have not responded at all
> indicating that the invitation to become committers and PPMC members is
> being withdrawn. (Assuming we decide to do that and set such a date.)
>>
>> I would make the changes that Stephen Bergmann recommended.
>>
>> More feedback and discussion, please.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Juan C. Sanz [mailto:juancsanzc@hotmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 12:28
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
> Committer Status
>>
>> El 22/07/2011 5:10, Dennis E. Hamilton escribió:
>>> There are 20 Initial Committers on the OpenOffice.org incubator proposal
> who have not yet submitted iCLAs or informed us of their intention not to do
> so.
>>>
>>> Today I used the following format for a message to one of those Initial
> Committers.
>>>
>>> Before 19 more of these are sent out I wanted to check how understandable
> this is.
>>>
>>> I am particularly concerned for how clear this is for those who are not
> native English speakers.
>>>
>>> I welcome your advice.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> *** specimen message ***
>>>
>>> From:<PPMC member>
>>> Sent:<today>
>>> To:<Initial Committer lacking iCLA so far>
>>> Cc: ooo-private@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject:<Initial Committer Name>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer
> Status
>>>
>>> Hello<Initial Committer Name>,
>>>
>>> You are listed as an Initial Committer on the proposal for the Apache
> OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>>>
>>> The incubator project was accepted by Apache on 2011-06-13.
>>>
>>> As an Initial Committer you are invited to be established as a committer
> on the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator podling. You are also invited to
> serve on the Podling Project Management Committee after you are established
> as a committer.
>>>
>>> The prerequisite to becoming established as a committer is to register an
> iCLA agreement with Apache.
>>>
>>> Our records indicate that no iCLA has been received from you.
>>>
>>> If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to<
> ooo-private@incubator.apache.org>. We will then know not wait for it.
>>>
>>> If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to
> ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need before
> the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
>>>
>>> For more information and iCLA/CCLA forms, go to<
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>. Complete instructions for submission
> of an iCLA is at the top of the form (text or PDF).
>>>
>>> We welcome your contribution to the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator
> project.
>>>
>>> - the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator Podling Project Management
> Committee (PPMC)
>>>
>>> *** end of specimen message ***
>>>
>> I think it's understundandable. But, what is the next step? how long do
>> we wait for the user id?
>> Regards.
>> Juan C. Sanz
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 07/23/2011 06:29 PM, schrieb IngridvdM:
> Please find my comments inline.
>
> Am 23.07.2011 14:45, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
>> I think Christian is right. It's about to close the gate for being a
>> *initial* committer. Not the *normal* committer status.
>>
> I don't have gotten that wrong. I was talking about the initial
> committers too.
>
>> And for this we have to define a deadline. My suggestion is still end of
>> July or latestly end of August.
>>
> No given reason has convinced me of the necessity of a deadline here.
But I don't see an argument to keep the door open endlessly. At some
point in time the inital thing is done and over. Or do you think
different? ;-)
Marcus
>> When you have entered your name on the list on the beginning and haven't
>> answered back until today (even not to say "sorry, I need a bit more
>> time"), then IMHO it's time for a deadline.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 07/23/2011 01:29 PM, schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
>>> Hi Ingrid, *,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:37 PM, IngridvdM<In...@gmx-topmail.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I disagree with you in the opinion that the door needs to be closed
>>>> some day
>>>> and that people need to be sorted out. This can easily be felt to be
>>>> very
>>>> alienating, without any positive effect.
>>>
>>> I strongly disagree here. The door is not closed as written many times
>>> already.
>>>
>>>> Lets choose the example that an initial commiter signs up the iCLA
>>>> only next
>>>> year. The reasons are pointless.
>>>
>>> No, not at all, you cannot be an *INITIAL* committer if you're not
>>> part of it from the very beginning.
>>>
>>>> The ones that have signed the iCLA can simply fully work already. Those
>>>> who have not signed the iCLA can contribute via mail and the user wiki.
>>>
>>> Yes. But not as *initial* committers.
>>>
>>>> So lets not waste our time with processes to prevent something that
>>>> is of no
>>>> harm.
>>>
>>> It is doing harm. Having "fake" committers/supporters that only exist
>>> on paper is doing big harm (in perception, reputation of the whole
>>> project).
>
> There can be a difference in number between initial committers and
> 'completed' committers in both cases. Whether we put a deadline on this
> or not does not change that.
> And I think it is not ok to call those who have not completed the legal
> paper work yet to be 'fake' committers.
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
IngridvdM wrote on Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 20:04:54 +0200:
> Am 24.07.2011 18:41, schrieb Daniel Shahaf:
> >IngridvdM wrote on Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:02:00 +0200:
> >>Am 23.07.2011 23:47, schrieb Ross Gardler:
> >>>It is common practice for Apache projects to periodically clear out
> >>>their committer lists. People who are no longer active on a project
> >>>are, in many projects, routinely moved to emeritus status. It is
> >>>entirely possible that this project will opt to do the same at some
> >>>point in the future (note committers who are moved to emeritus need
> >>>only ask to have their commit privileges returned).
> >>>
> >>Ok, that was quite unexpected to me. But in another thread I have
> >>learned now that this is done because of security reasons. I think
> >>that is a good reason also!
> >>
> >
> >I don't see what security is achieved here.
> >
> Prevent misuse of unattended accounts I believe.
> Isn't this the case?
>
That depends on how you track emeritus status --- within the project, or
also by removing people from the ooo and/or ooo-pmc groups in the authz
file when they turn emeritus.
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by IngridvdM <In...@gmx-topmail.de>.
Am 24.07.2011 18:41, schrieb Daniel Shahaf:
> IngridvdM wrote on Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:02:00 +0200:
>> Am 23.07.2011 23:47, schrieb Ross Gardler:
>>> (with my mentors hat)
>>>
>>> On 23 July 2011 22:08, IngridvdM<In...@gmx-topmail.de> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> people might be ill, people might be on a journey around the
>>>> world.
>>>
>>> Then when they return to their email they can make a case to the
>>> (P)PMC who can vote according to the normal rules of engagement. There
>>> is no need to keep the existing invitation open indefinitely and thus
>>> causing work for people trying to track this.
>>>
>>
>> Reducing the workload is indeed a good reason for a deadline. Thanks
>> for pointing to this Ross! I somehow had thought it would be exactly
>> the opposite, that having this deadline would cause more work, but I
>> now think that I was wrong with that assumption.
>> So this feels like consensus now. :-)
>>
>> Dennis, please accept my apologies that I haven't seen this clearer
>> before. I hope I am still allowed to suggest to add this rationale
>> to the reminder mail. An important principle of change acceptance is
>> to describe the reasons to the people. I really think that this
>> would be helpful.
>>
>> A concrete suggestion:
>> Replace the sentence "We will then know not wait for it."
>> with
>> "We will then no longer need to track your status and will not send
>> further reminder mails to you."
>>
>> Would that make sense?
>>
>
> Are you intending for their status to be "A standing invitation" or "An
> expired invitation" (to become a committer)?
>
I have had concerns with a deadline as long as there wasn't a satisfying
reason that could be given to the affected people. Reducing the workload
in the project is now identified as a good enough reason for that
deadline in my opinion. So I am ok with withdrawing the invitation after
a generous time with giving a notice before and with giving this kind
reason. That really should not upset anyone accidentally.
>> [...]
>>>> Would you suggest to withdraw committer status if a committer is off for 1
>>>> months, two months, a year?
>>>
>>> It is common practice for Apache projects to periodically clear out
>>> their committer lists. People who are no longer active on a project
>>> are, in many projects, routinely moved to emeritus status. It is
>>> entirely possible that this project will opt to do the same at some
>>> point in the future (note committers who are moved to emeritus need
>>> only ask to have their commit privileges returned).
>>>
>> Ok, that was quite unexpected to me. But in another thread I have
>> learned now that this is done because of security reasons. I think
>> that is a good reason also!
>>
>
> I don't see what security is achieved here.
>
Prevent misuse of unattended accounts I believe.
Isn't this the case?
Kind regards,
Ingrid
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
IngridvdM wrote on Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:02:00 +0200:
> Am 23.07.2011 23:47, schrieb Ross Gardler:
> >(with my mentors hat)
> >
> >On 23 July 2011 22:08, IngridvdM<In...@gmx-topmail.de> wrote:
> [...]
> >>people might be ill, people might be on a journey around the
> >>world.
> >
> >Then when they return to their email they can make a case to the
> >(P)PMC who can vote according to the normal rules of engagement. There
> >is no need to keep the existing invitation open indefinitely and thus
> >causing work for people trying to track this.
> >
>
> Reducing the workload is indeed a good reason for a deadline. Thanks
> for pointing to this Ross! I somehow had thought it would be exactly
> the opposite, that having this deadline would cause more work, but I
> now think that I was wrong with that assumption.
> So this feels like consensus now. :-)
>
> Dennis, please accept my apologies that I haven't seen this clearer
> before. I hope I am still allowed to suggest to add this rationale
> to the reminder mail. An important principle of change acceptance is
> to describe the reasons to the people. I really think that this
> would be helpful.
>
> A concrete suggestion:
> Replace the sentence "We will then know not wait for it."
> with
> "We will then no longer need to track your status and will not send
> further reminder mails to you."
>
> Would that make sense?
>
Are you intending for their status to be "A standing invitation" or "An
expired invitation" (to become a committer)?
> [...]
> >>Would you suggest to withdraw committer status if a committer is off for 1
> >>months, two months, a year?
> >
> >It is common practice for Apache projects to periodically clear out
> >their committer lists. People who are no longer active on a project
> >are, in many projects, routinely moved to emeritus status. It is
> >entirely possible that this project will opt to do the same at some
> >point in the future (note committers who are moved to emeritus need
> >only ask to have their commit privileges returned).
> >
> Ok, that was quite unexpected to me. But in another thread I have
> learned now that this is done because of security reasons. I think
> that is a good reason also!
>
I don't see what security is achieved here.
RE: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Your rewording is fine with me. Thanks.
And thank you for the discussion. It is important to explore all of the concerns that arise around the Initial Committer situation that we have.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: IngridvdM [mailto:IngridvdM@gmx-topmail.de]
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 01:02
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
Am 23.07.2011 23:47, schrieb Ross Gardler:
> (with my mentors hat)
>
> On 23 July 2011 22:08, IngridvdM<In...@gmx-topmail.de> wrote:
[...]
>> people might be ill, people might be on a journey around the
>> world.
>
> Then when they return to their email they can make a case to the
> (P)PMC who can vote according to the normal rules of engagement. There
> is no need to keep the existing invitation open indefinitely and thus
> causing work for people trying to track this.
>
Reducing the workload is indeed a good reason for a deadline. Thanks for
pointing to this Ross! I somehow had thought it would be exactly the
opposite, that having this deadline would cause more work, but I now
think that I was wrong with that assumption.
So this feels like consensus now. :-)
Dennis, please accept my apologies that I haven't seen this clearer
before. I hope I am still allowed to suggest to add this rationale to
the reminder mail. An important principle of change acceptance is to
describe the reasons to the people. I really think that this would be
helpful.
A concrete suggestion:
Replace the sentence "We will then know not wait for it."
with
"We will then no longer need to track your status and will not send
further reminder mails to you."
Would that make sense?
[...]
>> Would you suggest to withdraw committer status if a committer is off for 1
>> months, two months, a year?
>
> It is common practice for Apache projects to periodically clear out
> their committer lists. People who are no longer active on a project
> are, in many projects, routinely moved to emeritus status. It is
> entirely possible that this project will opt to do the same at some
> point in the future (note committers who are moved to emeritus need
> only ask to have their commit privileges returned).
>
Ok, that was quite unexpected to me. But in another thread I have
learned now that this is done because of security reasons. I think that
is a good reason also!
I feel the rules that are in place at Apache are very good ones, as they
have been established with long experience and with good reasons.
Important is to get also those reasons over to the people I think.
So thanks a lot Dennis, Ross and Shane for helping to understand here!
Kind regards,
Ingrid
> Ross
>
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by IngridvdM <In...@gmx-topmail.de>.
Am 23.07.2011 23:47, schrieb Ross Gardler:
> (with my mentors hat)
>
> On 23 July 2011 22:08, IngridvdM<In...@gmx-topmail.de> wrote:
[...]
>> people might be ill, people might be on a journey around the
>> world.
>
> Then when they return to their email they can make a case to the
> (P)PMC who can vote according to the normal rules of engagement. There
> is no need to keep the existing invitation open indefinitely and thus
> causing work for people trying to track this.
>
Reducing the workload is indeed a good reason for a deadline. Thanks for
pointing to this Ross! I somehow had thought it would be exactly the
opposite, that having this deadline would cause more work, but I now
think that I was wrong with that assumption.
So this feels like consensus now. :-)
Dennis, please accept my apologies that I haven't seen this clearer
before. I hope I am still allowed to suggest to add this rationale to
the reminder mail. An important principle of change acceptance is to
describe the reasons to the people. I really think that this would be
helpful.
A concrete suggestion:
Replace the sentence "We will then know not wait for it."
with
"We will then no longer need to track your status and will not send
further reminder mails to you."
Would that make sense?
[...]
>> Would you suggest to withdraw committer status if a committer is off for 1
>> months, two months, a year?
>
> It is common practice for Apache projects to periodically clear out
> their committer lists. People who are no longer active on a project
> are, in many projects, routinely moved to emeritus status. It is
> entirely possible that this project will opt to do the same at some
> point in the future (note committers who are moved to emeritus need
> only ask to have their commit privileges returned).
>
Ok, that was quite unexpected to me. But in another thread I have
learned now that this is done because of security reasons. I think that
is a good reason also!
I feel the rules that are in place at Apache are very good ones, as they
have been established with long experience and with good reasons.
Important is to get also those reasons over to the people I think.
So thanks a lot Dennis, Ross and Shane for helping to understand here!
Kind regards,
Ingrid
> Ross
>
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
(with my mentors hat)
On 23 July 2011 22:08, IngridvdM <In...@gmx-topmail.de> wrote:
> Hi Dennis,
>
> Am 23.07.2011 21:35, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
...
>> If that was you, what would you be holding onto by wanting that invitation
>> to be permanent without taking the steps that go with accepting it?
>>
> I simply see no reason to shut the door.
Being a member of an ASF project community is open to anyone. Being a
committer is a privilege, not a right. It is a privilege that is
bestowed by the existing (P)PMC members in recognition of
contributions to the project. The door to community engagement is
never closed but the door to a privileged position is one that only
opens in response to active and constructive engagement.
> People might be in the middle of
> paper work,
Then they can say so and the door should be left open. How long for is
another question altogether.
> people might be ill, people might be on a journey around the
> world.
Then when they return to their email they can make a case to the
(P)PMC who can vote according to the normal rules of engagement. There
is no need to keep the existing invitation open indefinitely and thus
causing work for people trying to track this.
> You also may have send the invitation to the wrong mail.
It should not be the responsibility of the volunteers here on the
(P)PMC to chase down those who claim to be willing to contribute
constructively to the project but are unable to read this list.
> Would you suggest to withdraw committer status if a committer is off for 1
> months, two months, a year?
It is common practice for Apache projects to periodically clear out
their committer lists. People who are no longer active on a project
are, in many projects, routinely moved to emeritus status. It is
entirely possible that this project will opt to do the same at some
point in the future (note committers who are moved to emeritus need
only ask to have their commit privileges returned).
Ross
RE: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
With regard to e-mail addresses, we use those on the proposal Initial Committers list. We have no others. I had a copy of the list that was used for the 6/23 follow-up and we found that two bounced because I had transcribed them incorrectly. Those were corrected and the follow-up resent. I am not aware of any others being returned.
Also, when someone records a different e-mail address in there iCLA, it slows things down because the e-mail address is the basic means we have for confirming identity. That has not become an issue that couldn't be resolved so far. If the name on the iCLA is too different, that will be a problem as well, of course.
About people responding to our enquiries: Of course circumstances intervene on estimates and declarations of intentions. All it takes is being in communication to deal with such matters.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: IngridvdM [mailto:IngridvdM@gmx-topmail.de]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 14:09
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
Hi Dennis,
Am 23.07.2011 21:35, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> Ingrid,
>
> You can help me.
>
> I am having difficulty finding a concrete case for completely open-ended invitation of Initial Committers.
>
I don't know whether there are any, I haven't searched.
> Suppose you were on the Initial Committer list. You had not sent an iCLA. You had not responded to a request to take that step as part of being established as an official committer for the Apache OpenOffice.org podling.
>
> If that was you, what would you be holding onto by wanting that invitation to be permanent without taking the steps that go with accepting it?
>
I simply see no reason to shut the door. People might be in the middle
of paper work, people might be ill, people might be on a journey around
the world. You also may have send the invitation to the wrong mail. None
of this would cause me to consider to withdraw someones committers
rights, so why should it cause me to consider to withdraw someones
committers invitation?
Would you suggest to withdraw committer status if a committer is off for
1 months, two months, a year?
> If that was you, what would have this be rude or an insult that you be expected to take the initiative and show up as an established committer.
>
The expectation to show up is of course not rude. Invitation and
expectation is nice! :-)
But threatening with an arbitrary deadline is somewhat strange, really.
And requesting for a time estimation about such complicated things as
legal paper work, well please.
> Why would you not be taking committed actions to create and grow the Apache OpenOffice.org project?
>
I think enough reasons have been given for people beeing late.
A misunderstanding was clearly between posing a deadline on paperwork or
only posing a deadline on people who are not responsive at all. So
making a difference here is a step of coming together! :-)
Now for the not responsive ones, I still won't close the door for them,
but I seem to be a minority here and will adhere to principles of
democracy. But please give them as much time as possible and make really
sure that you use correct email addresses in the reminder mails.
It would be a pity to have upset people because of this.
Thanks,
Ingrid
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by IngridvdM <In...@gmx-topmail.de>.
Hi Dennis,
Am 23.07.2011 21:35, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> Ingrid,
>
> You can help me.
>
> I am having difficulty finding a concrete case for completely open-ended invitation of Initial Committers.
>
I don't know whether there are any, I haven't searched.
> Suppose you were on the Initial Committer list. You had not sent an iCLA. You had not responded to a request to take that step as part of being established as an official committer for the Apache OpenOffice.org podling.
>
> If that was you, what would you be holding onto by wanting that invitation to be permanent without taking the steps that go with accepting it?
>
I simply see no reason to shut the door. People might be in the middle
of paper work, people might be ill, people might be on a journey around
the world. You also may have send the invitation to the wrong mail. None
of this would cause me to consider to withdraw someones committers
rights, so why should it cause me to consider to withdraw someones
committers invitation?
Would you suggest to withdraw committer status if a committer is off for
1 months, two months, a year?
> If that was you, what would have this be rude or an insult that you be expected to take the initiative and show up as an established committer.
>
The expectation to show up is of course not rude. Invitation and
expectation is nice! :-)
But threatening with an arbitrary deadline is somewhat strange, really.
And requesting for a time estimation about such complicated things as
legal paper work, well please.
> Why would you not be taking committed actions to create and grow the Apache OpenOffice.org project?
>
I think enough reasons have been given for people beeing late.
A misunderstanding was clearly between posing a deadline on paperwork or
only posing a deadline on people who are not responsive at all. So
making a difference here is a step of coming together! :-)
Now for the not responsive ones, I still won't close the door for them,
but I seem to be a minority here and will adhere to principles of
democracy. But please give them as much time as possible and make really
sure that you use correct email addresses in the reminder mails.
It would be a pity to have upset people because of this.
Thanks,
Ingrid
RE: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Ingrid,
You can help me.
I am having difficulty finding a concrete case for completely open-ended invitation of Initial Committers.
Suppose you were on the Initial Committer list. You had not sent an iCLA. You had not responded to a request to take that step as part of being established as an official committer for the Apache OpenOffice.org podling.
If that was you, what would you be holding onto by wanting that invitation to be permanent without taking the steps that go with accepting it?
If that was you, what would have this be rude or an insult that you be expected to take the initiative and show up as an established committer.
Why would you not be taking committed actions to create and grow the Apache OpenOffice.org project?
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: IngridvdM [mailto:IngridvdM@gmx-topmail.de]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 10:46
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
Am 23.07.2011 18:51, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>
> On Jul 23, 2011, at 9:29 AM, IngridvdM wrote:
>
>> Please find my comments inline.
>>
>> Am 23.07.2011 14:45, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
[...]
>>> And for this we have to define a deadline. My suggestion is still end of
>>> July or latestly end of August.
>>>
>> No given reason has convinced me of the necessity of a deadline here.
>
> While there is ample reason to have a generous deadline, I haven't heard a good reason not to have a deadline.
>
In general one can avoid a lot of unnecessary work while doing only
those things where is a good reason to do them.
In contrast doing all things where is no good reason against leaves one
with a lot more todos ;-)
Really this argument is about not becoming too bureaucratic.
But my other argument is that I feel it is socially alienating if we are
threatening people with deadlines without giving them a reason for it.
My impression was that Wolf Halton has felt the same. He has asked for a
reason, but not gotten an answer yet.
So in the end I think those who are voting for a deadline need to
provide a good reasons to do so.
Kind regards,
Ingrid
RE: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Here is what I propose based on the discussion so far:
1. Make the modifications to the message already proposed, but without addition of any kind of deadline. Simply request their intentions to file an iCLA (and by when) or not. I do want to be gracious and accept that there may be many difficulties in understanding and in execution.
2. Not take any action on that message until after 2011-07-27 when I will have returned from OSCON and can review further discussion on this list. I would like to send the message by 2011-07-29.
3. On 2011-08-18, send all of those who have not responded at all a message saying that the time limit for their responding is 2011-09-15 and if there has been no response, the invitation to serve as an Initial Committer will be withdrawn. They can of course join ooo-dev and contribute in any manner they choose at any time.
- Dennis
RATIONALE:
Initial Committer status is the exception, not the rule.
It was also exceptional that the OpenOffice.org proposal accepted anyone who added their name to the proposal wiki page as an Initial Committer.
We want to move from the initial bootstrap to operating as a regular podling and PPMC, first to operate smoothly and secondly to qualify for graduation to a full Top-Level Project (TLP) and PPMC.
We have 20 people on the Initial Committer list who did not show up and that have not responded since reminded of their opportunity on June 23.
The *only* time limit I believe we are discussing are any of those who are non-responsive to the next e-mail reminder and request for their intentions. For those who do respond, what we do will depend on their response. I, for one, want to support them any way we can to establish themselves as committers if that is their desire.
I don't know what to do about language issues. I reviewed the list and there are at least five different languages represented, perhaps more. The best we could do for that is provide the English text followed by a translation into a language that the recipient might be more comfortable with. That leaves open the question of how comfortable will they be as committers and PPMC members where the working language is only English.
-----Original Message-----
From: IngridvdM [mailto:IngridvdM@gmx-topmail.de]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 10:46
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
Am 23.07.2011 18:51, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>
> On Jul 23, 2011, at 9:29 AM, IngridvdM wrote:
>
>> Please find my comments inline.
>>
>> Am 23.07.2011 14:45, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
[...]
>>> And for this we have to define a deadline. My suggestion is still end of
>>> July or latestly end of August.
>>>
>> No given reason has convinced me of the necessity of a deadline here.
>
> While there is ample reason to have a generous deadline, I haven't heard a good reason not to have a deadline.
>
In general one can avoid a lot of unnecessary work while doing only
those things where is a good reason to do them.
In contrast doing all things where is no good reason against leaves one
with a lot more todos ;-)
Really this argument is about not becoming too bureaucratic.
But my other argument is that I feel it is socially alienating if we are
threatening people with deadlines without giving them a reason for it.
My impression was that Wolf Halton has felt the same. He has asked for a
reason, but not gotten an answer yet.
So in the end I think those who are voting for a deadline need to
provide a good reasons to do so.
Kind regards,
Ingrid
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
(<project mentor hat> - note that Ross Gardler has some good comments in
this thread as well)
On 7/23/2011 1:45 PM, IngridvdM wrote:
> Am 23.07.2011 18:51, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>
>> On Jul 23, 2011, at 9:29 AM, IngridvdM wrote:
>>
>>> Please find my comments inline.
>>>
>>> Am 23.07.2011 14:45, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> [...]
>>>> And for this we have to define a deadline. My suggestion is still
>>>> end of
>>>> July or latestly end of August.
>>>>
>>> No given reason has convinced me of the necessity of a deadline here.
>>
>> While there is ample reason to have a generous deadline, I haven't
>> heard a good reason not to have a deadline.
>>
> In general one can avoid a lot of unnecessary work while doing only
> those things where is a good reason to do them.
> In contrast doing all things where is no good reason against leaves one
> with a lot more todos ;-)
> Really this argument is about not becoming too bureaucratic.
The steps to accept the initial committer invitation are fairly simple.
They're also fundamentally important to be able to participate in this
project as a committer. If someone gets in touch with the PPMC and asks
for an extension so they can (finish vacation | check with laywer |
whatever), then I'd suggest being lenient and working with them. If
someone hasn't even contacted us back, I have little patience for them,
nor much expectation that they're truly interested in helping.
>
> But my other argument is that I feel it is socially alienating if we are
> threatening people with deadlines without giving them a reason for it.
> My impression was that Wolf Halton has felt the same. He has asked for a
> reason, but not gotten an answer yet.
The Apache Way is that the community of active and productive
committers/PPMC members of this podling run this podling (project).
Ignoring the simple steps to accept an initial committer invitation says
to me that the person is not interested in being active or productive
within this community.
I don't know how to say this as politely as I'd like to be able to say
it, but this is a crucial point: this list is dedicated to the community
that is building the Apache OpenOffice podling. This is a new project
and community, distinct from - and highly likely to be different from -
the previous OpenOffice.org project and community.
To be successful we absolutely need to understand the community methods
used in the previous project, and consider which of them make sense to
adopt here. But we also need to ensure that potential contributors
understand that this is a separate project, and community norms and
rules from OpenOffice.org will not necessarily be carried forward to
Apache OpenOffice.
>
> So in the end I think those who are voting for a deadline need to
> provide a good reasons to do so.
Given that August is often for vacations, I'd be happy with the proposed
deadline of 15-Sept as proposed elsewhere on this thread. Personally, I
cannot see the need to extend that deadline any further for initial
committers unless specific individuals request an extension for some
concrete reason.
Note that I would also suggest simply calling everyone committers (or
invited committers), and not emphasize any difference between those in
the original proposal list and those who are voted on by the PPMC.
- Shane
>
> Kind regards,
> Ingrid
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by IngridvdM <In...@gmx-topmail.de>.
Am 23.07.2011 18:51, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>
> On Jul 23, 2011, at 9:29 AM, IngridvdM wrote:
>
>> Please find my comments inline.
>>
>> Am 23.07.2011 14:45, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
[...]
>>> And for this we have to define a deadline. My suggestion is still end of
>>> July or latestly end of August.
>>>
>> No given reason has convinced me of the necessity of a deadline here.
>
> While there is ample reason to have a generous deadline, I haven't heard a good reason not to have a deadline.
>
In general one can avoid a lot of unnecessary work while doing only
those things where is a good reason to do them.
In contrast doing all things where is no good reason against leaves one
with a lot more todos ;-)
Really this argument is about not becoming too bureaucratic.
But my other argument is that I feel it is socially alienating if we are
threatening people with deadlines without giving them a reason for it.
My impression was that Wolf Halton has felt the same. He has asked for a
reason, but not gotten an answer yet.
So in the end I think those who are voting for a deadline need to
provide a good reasons to do so.
Kind regards,
Ingrid
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 07/23/2011 06:51 PM, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>
> On Jul 23, 2011, at 9:29 AM, IngridvdM wrote:
>
>> Please find my comments inline.
>>
>> Am 23.07.2011 14:45, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
>>> I think Christian is right. It's about to close the gate for being a
>>> *initial* committer. Not the *normal* committer status.
>>>
>> I don't have gotten that wrong. I was talking about the initial committers too.
>>
>>> And for this we have to define a deadline. My suggestion is still end of
>>> July or latestly end of August.
>>>
>> No given reason has convinced me of the necessity of a deadline here.
>
> While there is ample reason to have a generous deadline, I haven't heard a good reason not to have a deadline.
>
>>> When you have entered your name on the list on the beginning and haven't
>>> answered back until today (even not to say "sorry, I need a bit more
>>> time"), then IMHO it's time for a deadline.
>
> Maybe if we were able to understand why some of these individuals have delayed it would help.
I know what you mean but when they haven't shown up here until today,
IMHO they also won't answer to tell us why not. ;-)
Marcus
>>> Am 07/23/2011 01:29 PM, schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
>>>> Hi Ingrid, *,
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:37 PM, IngridvdM<In...@gmx-topmail.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree with you in the opinion that the door needs to be closed
>>>>> some day
>>>>> and that people need to be sorted out. This can easily be felt to be
>>>>> very
>>>>> alienating, without any positive effect.
>>>>
>>>> I strongly disagree here. The door is not closed as written many times
>>>> already.
>>>>
>>>>> Lets choose the example that an initial commiter signs up the iCLA
>>>>> only next
>>>>> year. The reasons are pointless.
>>>>
>>>> No, not at all, you cannot be an *INITIAL* committer if you're not
>>>> part of it from the very beginning.
>>>>
>>>>> The ones that have signed the iCLA can simply fully work already. Those
>>>>> who have not signed the iCLA can contribute via mail and the user wiki.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. But not as *initial* committers.
>>>>
>>>>> So lets not waste our time with processes to prevent something that
>>>>> is of no
>>>>> harm.
>>>>
>>>> It is doing harm. Having "fake" committers/supporters that only exist
>>>> on paper is doing big harm (in perception, reputation of the whole
>>>> project).
>>
>> There can be a difference in number between initial committers and 'completed' committers in both cases. Whether we put a deadline on this or not does not change that.
>> And I think it is not ok to call those who have not completed the legal paper work yet to be 'fake' committers.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Ingrid
>>
>>>>
>>>> ciao
>>>> Christian
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jul 23, 2011, at 9:29 AM, IngridvdM wrote:
> Please find my comments inline.
>
> Am 23.07.2011 14:45, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
>> I think Christian is right. It's about to close the gate for being a
>> *initial* committer. Not the *normal* committer status.
>>
> I don't have gotten that wrong. I was talking about the initial committers too.
>
>> And for this we have to define a deadline. My suggestion is still end of
>> July or latestly end of August.
>>
> No given reason has convinced me of the necessity of a deadline here.
While there is ample reason to have a generous deadline, I haven't heard a good reason not to have a deadline.
>
>> When you have entered your name on the list on the beginning and haven't
>> answered back until today (even not to say "sorry, I need a bit more
>> time"), then IMHO it's time for a deadline.
Maybe if we were able to understand why some of these individuals have delayed it would help.
Regards,
Dave
>
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 07/23/2011 01:29 PM, schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
>>> Hi Ingrid, *,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:37 PM, IngridvdM<In...@gmx-topmail.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I disagree with you in the opinion that the door needs to be closed
>>>> some day
>>>> and that people need to be sorted out. This can easily be felt to be
>>>> very
>>>> alienating, without any positive effect.
>>>
>>> I strongly disagree here. The door is not closed as written many times
>>> already.
>>>
>>>> Lets choose the example that an initial commiter signs up the iCLA
>>>> only next
>>>> year. The reasons are pointless.
>>>
>>> No, not at all, you cannot be an *INITIAL* committer if you're not
>>> part of it from the very beginning.
>>>
>>>> The ones that have signed the iCLA can simply fully work already. Those
>>>> who have not signed the iCLA can contribute via mail and the user wiki.
>>>
>>> Yes. But not as *initial* committers.
>>>
>>>> So lets not waste our time with processes to prevent something that
>>>> is of no
>>>> harm.
>>>
>>> It is doing harm. Having "fake" committers/supporters that only exist
>>> on paper is doing big harm (in perception, reputation of the whole
>>> project).
>
> There can be a difference in number between initial committers and 'completed' committers in both cases. Whether we put a deadline on this or not does not change that.
> And I think it is not ok to call those who have not completed the legal paper work yet to be 'fake' committers.
>
> Kind regards,
> Ingrid
>
>>>
>>> ciao
>>> Christian
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by IngridvdM <In...@gmx-topmail.de>.
Please find my comments inline.
Am 23.07.2011 14:45, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> I think Christian is right. It's about to close the gate for being a
> *initial* committer. Not the *normal* committer status.
>
I don't have gotten that wrong. I was talking about the initial
committers too.
> And for this we have to define a deadline. My suggestion is still end of
> July or latestly end of August.
>
No given reason has convinced me of the necessity of a deadline here.
> When you have entered your name on the list on the beginning and haven't
> answered back until today (even not to say "sorry, I need a bit more
> time"), then IMHO it's time for a deadline.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> Am 07/23/2011 01:29 PM, schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
>> Hi Ingrid, *,
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:37 PM, IngridvdM<In...@gmx-topmail.de>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I disagree with you in the opinion that the door needs to be closed
>>> some day
>>> and that people need to be sorted out. This can easily be felt to be
>>> very
>>> alienating, without any positive effect.
>>
>> I strongly disagree here. The door is not closed as written many times
>> already.
>>
>>> Lets choose the example that an initial commiter signs up the iCLA
>>> only next
>>> year. The reasons are pointless.
>>
>> No, not at all, you cannot be an *INITIAL* committer if you're not
>> part of it from the very beginning.
>>
>>> The ones that have signed the iCLA can simply fully work already. Those
>>> who have not signed the iCLA can contribute via mail and the user wiki.
>>
>> Yes. But not as *initial* committers.
>>
>>> So lets not waste our time with processes to prevent something that
>>> is of no
>>> harm.
>>
>> It is doing harm. Having "fake" committers/supporters that only exist
>> on paper is doing big harm (in perception, reputation of the whole
>> project).
There can be a difference in number between initial committers and
'completed' committers in both cases. Whether we put a deadline on this
or not does not change that.
And I think it is not ok to call those who have not completed the legal
paper work yet to be 'fake' committers.
Kind regards,
Ingrid
>>
>> ciao
>> Christian
>
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
I think Christian is right. It's about to close the gate for being a
*initial* committer. Not the *normal* committer status.
And for this we have to define a deadline. My suggestion is still end of
July or latestly end of August.
When you have entered your name on the list on the beginning and haven't
answered back until today (even not to say "sorry, I need a bit more
time"), then IMHO it's time for a deadline.
Marcus
Am 07/23/2011 01:29 PM, schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
> Hi Ingrid, *,
>
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:37 PM, IngridvdM<In...@gmx-topmail.de> wrote:
>>
>> I disagree with you in the opinion that the door needs to be closed some day
>> and that people need to be sorted out. This can easily be felt to be very
>> alienating, without any positive effect.
>
> I strongly disagree here. The door is not closed as written many times already.
>
>> Lets choose the example that an initial commiter signs up the iCLA only next
>> year. The reasons are pointless.
>
> No, not at all, you cannot be an *INITIAL* committer if you're not
> part of it from the very beginning.
>
>> The ones that have signed the iCLA can simply fully work already. Those
>> who have not signed the iCLA can contribute via mail and the user wiki.
>
> Yes. But not as *initial* committers.
>
>> So lets not waste our time with processes to prevent something that is of no
>> harm.
>
> It is doing harm. Having "fake" committers/supporters that only exist
> on paper is doing big harm (in perception, reputation of the whole
> project).
>
> ciao
> Christian
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by Christian Lohmaier <cl...@openoffice.org>.
Hi Ingrid, *,
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:37 PM, IngridvdM <In...@gmx-topmail.de> wrote:
>
> I disagree with you in the opinion that the door needs to be closed some day
> and that people need to be sorted out. This can easily be felt to be very
> alienating, without any positive effect.
I strongly disagree here. The door is not closed as written many times already.
> Lets choose the example that an initial commiter signs up the iCLA only next
> year. The reasons are pointless.
No, not at all, you cannot be an *INITIAL* committer if you're not
part of it from the very beginning.
> The ones that have signed the iCLA can simply fully work already. Those
> who have not signed the iCLA can contribute via mail and the user wiki.
Yes. But not as *initial* committers.
> So lets not waste our time with processes to prevent something that is of no
> harm.
It is doing harm. Having "fake" committers/supporters that only exist
on paper is doing big harm (in perception, reputation of the whole
project).
ciao
Christian
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by IngridvdM <In...@gmx-topmail.de>.
Hi Dennis,
I disagree with you in the opinion that the door needs to be closed some
day and that people need to be sorted out. This can easily be felt to be
very alienating, without any positive effect.
Lets choose the example that an initial commiter signs up the iCLA only
next year. The reasons are pointless. Important is that there is no harm
in doing so! The ones that have signed the iCLA can simply fully work
already. Those who have not signed the iCLA can contribute via mail and
the user wiki.
So lets not waste our time with processes to prevent something that is
of no harm.
And let me say again I like the rest of your friendly reminder mail :-)
Kind regards,
Ingrid
Am 23.07.2011 07:45, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> Let me ask the question in reverse: how long do you think that we should leave the door open, no questions asked? Why?
>
> Remember, Initial Committers are grandfathered in as committers and members of the PPMC without being here and demonstrating commitment through their contributions. It is not even a matter of them being voted in based on existing reputation. (I'm one of those myself.)
>
> At some point, one wants to be complete with intake of initial committers and working toward a full-fledged meritocracy instead. I suspect it is possible that the PPMC will also shrink if those who are already on it do not eventually demonstrate a commitment that would have qualified them in the ordinary way.
>
> At what point does holding out that special status to those who have not shown up become a point too far. In this case, we are talking about folks who have not submitted an iCLA and not responded to requests to submit them and, as far as I know, have not appeared on ooo-dev. Even if we withdraw the Initial Committer invitations at some point, there is no barrier to becoming a contributor and demonstrating commitment to the project. It's not fatal.
>
> I propose to ask each of these absent Initial Committers whether they intend to submit an iCLA and how much time they want to do that. It is a simple request. There are any number of possible responses. I assume we will deal with the responses on an individual basis. If they do not intend to submit an iCLA, it would be useful to know, so we don't have to be expecting them, watching for the iCLA to arrive, etc.
>
> My goal is having them show up. And if they are not going to show up, I would like to know that. Then we can tell when we have a full roster of Initial Committers that are ready and willing as they signaled they were.
>
> - Dennis
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolf Halton [mailto:wolf.halton@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 20:32
> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RE: [DISCUSS]<Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
>
> What is the technical or social stressor causing this issue to be framed in
> this time-sensitive language?
> Wolf
>
> On Jul 22, 2011 4:40 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton"<de...@acm.org>
> wrote:
>> I did not include a time limit, because we had not agreed on one. Instead,
> I made the request to indicate whether they intended to submit an iCLA and
> how much time they would need (for whatever review reasons or other
> determinations involved).
>>
>> These Initial Committers were already sent a bulk e-mail on June 23.
>>
>> Why would we not expect the Initial Committers who signed up by June 10 to
> report whether they intend to actually become committers? It is about their
> commitment, it seems to me. And they always have the opportunity to become
> committers by showing up and contributing, the same as for anyone who is not
> an Initial Committer.
>>
>> My thought was to wait 15-30 days after we approach all of them
> individually and then send a follow-up to ones who have not responded at all
> indicating that the invitation to become committers and PPMC members is
> being withdrawn. (Assuming we decide to do that and set such a date.)
>>
>> I would make the changes that Stephen Bergmann recommended.
>>
>> More feedback and discussion, please.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Juan C. Sanz [mailto:juancsanzc@hotmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 12:28
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]<Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
> Committer Status
>>
>> El 22/07/2011 5:10, Dennis E. Hamilton escribió:
>>> There are 20 Initial Committers on the OpenOffice.org incubator proposal
> who have not yet submitted iCLAs or informed us of their intention not to do
> so.
>>>
>>> Today I used the following format for a message to one of those Initial
> Committers.
>>>
>>> Before 19 more of these are sent out I wanted to check how understandable
> this is.
>>>
>>> I am particularly concerned for how clear this is for those who are not
> native English speakers.
>>>
>>> I welcome your advice.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> *** specimen message ***
>>>
>>> From:<PPMC member>
>>> Sent:<today>
>>> To:<Initial Committer lacking iCLA so far>
>>> Cc: ooo-private@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject:<Initial Committer Name>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer
> Status
>>>
>>> Hello<Initial Committer Name>,
>>>
>>> You are listed as an Initial Committer on the proposal for the Apache
> OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>>>
>>> The incubator project was accepted by Apache on 2011-06-13.
>>>
>>> As an Initial Committer you are invited to be established as a committer
> on the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator podling. You are also invited to
> serve on the Podling Project Management Committee after you are established
> as a committer.
>>>
>>> The prerequisite to becoming established as a committer is to register an
> iCLA agreement with Apache.
>>>
>>> Our records indicate that no iCLA has been received from you.
>>>
>>> If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to<
> ooo-private@incubator.apache.org>. We will then know not wait for it.
>>>
>>> If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to
> ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need before
> the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
>>>
>>> For more information and iCLA/CCLA forms, go to<
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>. Complete instructions for submission
> of an iCLA is at the top of the form (text or PDF).
>>>
>>> We welcome your contribution to the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator
> project.
>>>
>>> - the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator Podling Project Management
> Committee (PPMC)
>>>
>>> *** end of specimen message ***
>>>
>> I think it's understundandable. But, what is the next step? how long do
>> we wait for the user id?
>> Regards.
>> Juan C. Sanz
>>
>
>
RE: RE: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by Graham Lauder <g....@gmail.com>.
On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 22:45 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Let me ask the question in reverse: how long do you think that we should leave the door open, no questions asked? Why?
Til July 31, because it's long enough in a completely arbitrary way.
Those dedicated to OOo and who have no problem signing the ICLA would
have done it by now in other than exceptional circumstances. And as you
say it doesn't prevent them being invited to be comitters or on the PPMC
at a later date.
>
> Remember, Initial Committers are grandfathered in as committers and members of the PPMC without being here and demonstrating commitment through their contributions. It is not even a matter of them being voted in based on existing reputation. (I'm one of those myself.)
>
> At some point, one wants to be complete with intake of initial committers and working toward a full-fledged meritocracy instead. I suspect it is possible that the PPMC will also shrink if those who are already on it do not eventually demonstrate a commitment that would have qualified them in the ordinary way.
>
> At what point does holding out that special status to those who have not shown up become a point too far. In this case, we are talking about folks who have not submitted an iCLA and not responded to requests to submit them and, as far as I know, have not appeared on ooo-dev. Even if we withdraw the Initial Committer invitations at some point, there is no barrier to becoming a contributor and demonstrating commitment to the project. It's not fatal.
>
> I propose to ask each of these absent Initial Committers whether they intend to submit an iCLA and how much time they want to do that. It is a simple request. There are any number of possible responses. I assume we will deal with the responses on an individual basis. If they do not intend to submit an iCLA, it would be useful to know, so we don't have to be expecting them, watching for the iCLA to arrive, etc.
>
> My goal is having them show up. And if they are not going to show up, I would like to know that. Then we can tell when we have a full roster of Initial Committers that are ready and willing as they signaled they were.
>
> - Dennis
The Apache way is about lazy consensus, Yes? Then lets work on a "lazy
consent", simply add the tag that outlines as above in brief:
"We thank you for your early support. We now have a working compliment
of PPMC members from the initial committers. If you don't feel the need
to be on the PPMC or be a committer at this time, simply don't present
your ICLA before 31 July and you'll hear no more from us and we will
take that as read. Of course this does not prevent you from becoming a
committer or being invited onto the PPMC at a later date."
Or something of that nature
Cheers
GL
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolf Halton [mailto:wolf.halton@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 20:32
> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RE: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
>
> What is the technical or social stressor causing this issue to be framed in
> this time-sensitive language?
> Wolf
>
> On Jul 22, 2011 4:40 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>
> wrote:
> > I did not include a time limit, because we had not agreed on one. Instead,
> I made the request to indicate whether they intended to submit an iCLA and
> how much time they would need (for whatever review reasons or other
> determinations involved).
> >
> > These Initial Committers were already sent a bulk e-mail on June 23.
> >
> > Why would we not expect the Initial Committers who signed up by June 10 to
> report whether they intend to actually become committers? It is about their
> commitment, it seems to me. And they always have the opportunity to become
> committers by showing up and contributing, the same as for anyone who is not
> an Initial Committer.
> >
> > My thought was to wait 15-30 days after we approach all of them
> individually and then send a follow-up to ones who have not responded at all
> indicating that the invitation to become committers and PPMC members is
> being withdrawn. (Assuming we decide to do that and set such a date.)
> >
> > I would make the changes that Stephen Bergmann recommended.
> >
> > More feedback and discussion, please.
> >
> > - Dennis
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juan C. Sanz [mailto:juancsanzc@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 12:28
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
> Committer Status
> >
> > El 22/07/2011 5:10, Dennis E. Hamilton escribió:
> >> There are 20 Initial Committers on the OpenOffice.org incubator proposal
> who have not yet submitted iCLAs or informed us of their intention not to do
> so.
> >>
> >> Today I used the following format for a message to one of those Initial
> Committers.
> >>
> >> Before 19 more of these are sent out I wanted to check how understandable
> this is.
> >>
> >> I am particularly concerned for how clear this is for those who are not
> native English speakers.
> >>
> >> I welcome your advice.
> >>
> >> - Dennis
> >>
> >> *** specimen message ***
> >>
> >> From:<PPMC member>
> >> Sent:<today>
> >> To:<Initial Committer lacking iCLA so far>
> >> Cc: ooo-private@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject:<Initial Committer Name>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer
> Status
> >>
> >> Hello<Initial Committer Name>,
> >>
> >> You are listed as an Initial Committer on the proposal for the Apache
> OpenOffice.org incubator project.
> >>
> >> The incubator project was accepted by Apache on 2011-06-13.
> >>
> >> As an Initial Committer you are invited to be established as a committer
> on the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator podling. You are also invited to
> serve on the Podling Project Management Committee after you are established
> as a committer.
> >>
> >> The prerequisite to becoming established as a committer is to register an
> iCLA agreement with Apache.
> >>
> >> Our records indicate that no iCLA has been received from you.
> >>
> >> If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to<
> ooo-private@incubator.apache.org>. We will then know not wait for it.
> >>
> >> If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to
> ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need before
> the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
> >>
> >> For more information and iCLA/CCLA forms, go to<
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>. Complete instructions for submission
> of an iCLA is at the top of the form (text or PDF).
> >>
> >> We welcome your contribution to the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator
> project.
> >>
> >> - the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator Podling Project Management
> Committee (PPMC)
> >>
> >> *** end of specimen message ***
> >>
> > I think it's understundandable. But, what is the next step? how long do
> > we wait for the user id?
> > Regards.
> > Juan C. Sanz
> >
>
Fwd: Re: RE: RE: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org
Initial Committer Status
Posted by Wolf Halton <wo...@gmail.com>.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Wolf Halton" <wo...@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 23, 2011 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: RE: RE: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org
Initial Committer Status
To: <de...@acm.org>
So it is sort of an invisible line. The way you are framing the issue, and
the work you have done to help the initial committers has already convinced
me there must be a time limit. I want us all to be able to move on as well.
I would suggest year-end as the purge point for non-responders. It is 2x the
time anyone would need to have, so it is generous to a fault, however it
puts a closure to the issue. I would suggest you send your reminder now and
another final one early december. I will help, if you want. I am not just
suggesting more work for others. :-)
On Jul 23, 2011 1:45 AM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>
wrote:
> Let me ask the question in reverse: how long do you think that we should
leave the door open, no questions asked? Why?
>
> Remember, Initial Committers are grandfathered in as committers and
members of the PPMC without being here and demonstrating commitment through
their contributions. It is not even a matter of them being voted in based on
existing reputation. (I'm one of those myself.)
>
> At some point, one wants to be complete with intake of initial committers
and working toward a full-fledged meritocracy instead. I suspect it is
possible that the PPMC will also shrink if those who are already on it do
not eventually demonstrate a commitment that would have qualified them in
the ordinary way.
>
> At what point does holding out that special status to those who have not
shown up become a point too far. In this case, we are talking about folks
who have not submitted an iCLA and not responded to requests to submit them
and, as far as I know, have not appeared on ooo-dev. Even if we withdraw the
Initial Committer invitations at some point, there is no barrier to becoming
a contributor and demonstrating commitment to the project. It's not fatal.
>
> I propose to ask each of these absent Initial Committers whether they
intend to submit an iCLA and how much time they want to do that. It is a
simple request. There are any number of possible responses. I assume we will
deal with the responses on an individual basis. If they do not intend to
submit an iCLA, it would be useful to know, so we don't have to be expecting
them, watching for the iCLA to arrive, etc.
>
> My goal is having them show up. And if they are not going to show up, I
would like to know that. Then we can tell when we have a full roster of
Initial Committers that are ready and willing as they signaled they were.
>
> - Dennis
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolf Halton [mailto:wolf.halton@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 20:32
> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RE: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org
Initial Committer Status
>
> What is the technical or social stressor causing this issue to be framed
in
> this time-sensitive language?
> Wolf
>
> On Jul 22, 2011 4:40 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>
> wrote:
>> I did not include a time limit, because we had not agreed on one.
Instead,
> I made the request to indicate whether they intended to submit an iCLA and
> how much time they would need (for whatever review reasons or other
> determinations involved).
>>
>> These Initial Committers were already sent a bulk e-mail on June 23.
>>
>> Why would we not expect the Initial Committers who signed up by June 10
to
> report whether they intend to actually become committers? It is about
their
> commitment, it seems to me. And they always have the opportunity to become
> committers by showing up and contributing, the same as for anyone who is
not
> an Initial Committer.
>>
>> My thought was to wait 15-30 days after we approach all of them
> individually and then send a follow-up to ones who have not responded at
all
> indicating that the invitation to become committers and PPMC members is
> being withdrawn. (Assuming we decide to do that and set such a date.)
>>
>> I would make the changes that Stephen Bergmann recommended.
>>
>> More feedback and discussion, please.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Juan C. Sanz [mailto:juancsanzc@hotmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 12:28
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
> Committer Status
>>
>> El 22/07/2011 5:10, Dennis E. Hamilton escribió:
>>> There are 20 Initial Committers on the OpenOffice.org incubator proposal
> who have not yet submitted iCLAs or informed us of their intention not to
do
> so.
>>>
>>> Today I used the following format for a message to one of those Initial
> Committers.
>>>
>>> Before 19 more of these are sent out I wanted to check how
understandable
> this is.
>>>
>>> I am particularly concerned for how clear this is for those who are not
> native English speakers.
>>>
>>> I welcome your advice.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> *** specimen message ***
>>>
>>> From:<PPMC member>
>>> Sent:<today>
>>> To:<Initial Committer lacking iCLA so far>
>>> Cc: ooo-private@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject:<Initial Committer Name>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer
> Status
>>>
>>> Hello<Initial Committer Name>,
>>>
>>> You are listed as an Initial Committer on the proposal for the Apache
> OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>>>
>>> The incubator project was accepted by Apache on 2011-06-13.
>>>
>>> As an Initial Committer you are invited to be established as a committer
> on the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator podling. You are also invited to
> serve on the Podling Project Management Committee after you are
established
> as a committer.
>>>
>>> The prerequisite to becoming established as a committer is to register
an
> iCLA agreement with Apache.
>>>
>>> Our records indicate that no iCLA has been received from you.
>>>
>>> If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to<
> ooo-private@incubator.apache.org>. We will then know not wait for it.
>>>
>>> If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to
> ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need
before
> the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
>>>
>>> For more information and iCLA/CCLA forms, go to<
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>. Complete instructions for
submission
> of an iCLA is at the top of the form (text or PDF).
>>>
>>> We welcome your contribution to the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator
> project.
>>>
>>> - the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator Podling Project Management
> Committee (PPMC)
>>>
>>> *** end of specimen message ***
>>>
>> I think it's understundandable. But, what is the next step? how long do
>> we wait for the user id?
>> Regards.
>> Juan C. Sanz
>>
>
RE: RE: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Let me ask the question in reverse: how long do you think that we should leave the door open, no questions asked? Why?
Remember, Initial Committers are grandfathered in as committers and members of the PPMC without being here and demonstrating commitment through their contributions. It is not even a matter of them being voted in based on existing reputation. (I'm one of those myself.)
At some point, one wants to be complete with intake of initial committers and working toward a full-fledged meritocracy instead. I suspect it is possible that the PPMC will also shrink if those who are already on it do not eventually demonstrate a commitment that would have qualified them in the ordinary way.
At what point does holding out that special status to those who have not shown up become a point too far. In this case, we are talking about folks who have not submitted an iCLA and not responded to requests to submit them and, as far as I know, have not appeared on ooo-dev. Even if we withdraw the Initial Committer invitations at some point, there is no barrier to becoming a contributor and demonstrating commitment to the project. It's not fatal.
I propose to ask each of these absent Initial Committers whether they intend to submit an iCLA and how much time they want to do that. It is a simple request. There are any number of possible responses. I assume we will deal with the responses on an individual basis. If they do not intend to submit an iCLA, it would be useful to know, so we don't have to be expecting them, watching for the iCLA to arrive, etc.
My goal is having them show up. And if they are not going to show up, I would like to know that. Then we can tell when we have a full roster of Initial Committers that are ready and willing as they signaled they were.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Wolf Halton [mailto:wolf.halton@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 20:32
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: RE: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
What is the technical or social stressor causing this issue to be framed in
this time-sensitive language?
Wolf
On Jul 22, 2011 4:40 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>
wrote:
> I did not include a time limit, because we had not agreed on one. Instead,
I made the request to indicate whether they intended to submit an iCLA and
how much time they would need (for whatever review reasons or other
determinations involved).
>
> These Initial Committers were already sent a bulk e-mail on June 23.
>
> Why would we not expect the Initial Committers who signed up by June 10 to
report whether they intend to actually become committers? It is about their
commitment, it seems to me. And they always have the opportunity to become
committers by showing up and contributing, the same as for anyone who is not
an Initial Committer.
>
> My thought was to wait 15-30 days after we approach all of them
individually and then send a follow-up to ones who have not responded at all
indicating that the invitation to become committers and PPMC members is
being withdrawn. (Assuming we decide to do that and set such a date.)
>
> I would make the changes that Stephen Bergmann recommended.
>
> More feedback and discussion, please.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juan C. Sanz [mailto:juancsanzc@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 12:28
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
>
> El 22/07/2011 5:10, Dennis E. Hamilton escribió:
>> There are 20 Initial Committers on the OpenOffice.org incubator proposal
who have not yet submitted iCLAs or informed us of their intention not to do
so.
>>
>> Today I used the following format for a message to one of those Initial
Committers.
>>
>> Before 19 more of these are sent out I wanted to check how understandable
this is.
>>
>> I am particularly concerned for how clear this is for those who are not
native English speakers.
>>
>> I welcome your advice.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> *** specimen message ***
>>
>> From:<PPMC member>
>> Sent:<today>
>> To:<Initial Committer lacking iCLA so far>
>> Cc: ooo-private@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject:<Initial Committer Name>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer
Status
>>
>> Hello<Initial Committer Name>,
>>
>> You are listed as an Initial Committer on the proposal for the Apache
OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>>
>> The incubator project was accepted by Apache on 2011-06-13.
>>
>> As an Initial Committer you are invited to be established as a committer
on the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator podling. You are also invited to
serve on the Podling Project Management Committee after you are established
as a committer.
>>
>> The prerequisite to becoming established as a committer is to register an
iCLA agreement with Apache.
>>
>> Our records indicate that no iCLA has been received from you.
>>
>> If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to<
ooo-private@incubator.apache.org>. We will then know not wait for it.
>>
>> If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to
ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need before
the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
>>
>> For more information and iCLA/CCLA forms, go to<
http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>. Complete instructions for submission
of an iCLA is at the top of the form (text or PDF).
>>
>> We welcome your contribution to the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator
project.
>>
>> - the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator Podling Project Management
Committee (PPMC)
>>
>> *** end of specimen message ***
>>
> I think it's understundandable. But, what is the next step? how long do
> we wait for the user id?
> Regards.
> Juan C. Sanz
>
Re: RE: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by Wolf Halton <wo...@gmail.com>.
What is the technical or social stressor causing this issue to be framed in
this time-sensitive language?
Wolf
On Jul 22, 2011 4:40 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>
wrote:
> I did not include a time limit, because we had not agreed on one. Instead,
I made the request to indicate whether they intended to submit an iCLA and
how much time they would need (for whatever review reasons or other
determinations involved).
>
> These Initial Committers were already sent a bulk e-mail on June 23.
>
> Why would we not expect the Initial Committers who signed up by June 10 to
report whether they intend to actually become committers? It is about their
commitment, it seems to me. And they always have the opportunity to become
committers by showing up and contributing, the same as for anyone who is not
an Initial Committer.
>
> My thought was to wait 15-30 days after we approach all of them
individually and then send a follow-up to ones who have not responded at all
indicating that the invitation to become committers and PPMC members is
being withdrawn. (Assuming we decide to do that and set such a date.)
>
> I would make the changes that Stephen Bergmann recommended.
>
> More feedback and discussion, please.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juan C. Sanz [mailto:juancsanzc@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 12:28
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
>
> El 22/07/2011 5:10, Dennis E. Hamilton escribió:
>> There are 20 Initial Committers on the OpenOffice.org incubator proposal
who have not yet submitted iCLAs or informed us of their intention not to do
so.
>>
>> Today I used the following format for a message to one of those Initial
Committers.
>>
>> Before 19 more of these are sent out I wanted to check how understandable
this is.
>>
>> I am particularly concerned for how clear this is for those who are not
native English speakers.
>>
>> I welcome your advice.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> *** specimen message ***
>>
>> From:<PPMC member>
>> Sent:<today>
>> To:<Initial Committer lacking iCLA so far>
>> Cc: ooo-private@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject:<Initial Committer Name>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer
Status
>>
>> Hello<Initial Committer Name>,
>>
>> You are listed as an Initial Committer on the proposal for the Apache
OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>>
>> The incubator project was accepted by Apache on 2011-06-13.
>>
>> As an Initial Committer you are invited to be established as a committer
on the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator podling. You are also invited to
serve on the Podling Project Management Committee after you are established
as a committer.
>>
>> The prerequisite to becoming established as a committer is to register an
iCLA agreement with Apache.
>>
>> Our records indicate that no iCLA has been received from you.
>>
>> If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to<
ooo-private@incubator.apache.org>. We will then know not wait for it.
>>
>> If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to
ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need before
the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
>>
>> For more information and iCLA/CCLA forms, go to<
http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>. Complete instructions for submission
of an iCLA is at the top of the form (text or PDF).
>>
>> We welcome your contribution to the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator
project.
>>
>> - the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator Podling Project Management
Committee (PPMC)
>>
>> *** end of specimen message ***
>>
> I think it's understundandable. But, what is the next step? how long do
> we wait for the user id?
> Regards.
> Juan C. Sanz
>
RE: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I did not include a time limit, because we had not agreed on one. Instead, I made the request to indicate whether they intended to submit an iCLA and how much time they would need (for whatever review reasons or other determinations involved).
These Initial Committers were already sent a bulk e-mail on June 23.
Why would we not expect the Initial Committers who signed up by June 10 to report whether they intend to actually become committers? It is about their commitment, it seems to me. And they always have the opportunity to become committers by showing up and contributing, the same as for anyone who is not an Initial Committer.
My thought was to wait 15-30 days after we approach all of them individually and then send a follow-up to ones who have not responded at all indicating that the invitation to become committers and PPMC members is being withdrawn. (Assuming we decide to do that and set such a date.)
I would make the changes that Stephen Bergmann recommended.
More feedback and discussion, please.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Juan C. Sanz [mailto:juancsanzc@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 12:28
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] <Initial Committer>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
El 22/07/2011 5:10, Dennis E. Hamilton escribió:
> There are 20 Initial Committers on the OpenOffice.org incubator proposal who have not yet submitted iCLAs or informed us of their intention not to do so.
>
> Today I used the following format for a message to one of those Initial Committers.
>
> Before 19 more of these are sent out I wanted to check how understandable this is.
>
> I am particularly concerned for how clear this is for those who are not native English speakers.
>
> I welcome your advice.
>
> - Dennis
>
> *** specimen message ***
>
> From:<PPMC member>
> Sent:<today>
> To:<Initial Committer lacking iCLA so far>
> Cc: ooo-private@incubator.apache.org
> Subject:<Initial Committer Name>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
>
> Hello<Initial Committer Name>,
>
> You are listed as an Initial Committer on the proposal for the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>
> The incubator project was accepted by Apache on 2011-06-13.
>
> As an Initial Committer you are invited to be established as a committer on the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator podling. You are also invited to serve on the Podling Project Management Committee after you are established as a committer.
>
> The prerequisite to becoming established as a committer is to register an iCLA agreement with Apache.
>
> Our records indicate that no iCLA has been received from you.
>
> If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to<oo...@incubator.apache.org>. We will then know not wait for it.
>
> If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need before the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
>
> For more information and iCLA/CCLA forms, go to<http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>. Complete instructions for submission of an iCLA is at the top of the form (text or PDF).
>
> We welcome your contribution to the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>
> - the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC)
>
> *** end of specimen message ***
>
I think it's understundandable. But, what is the next step? how long do
we wait for the user id?
Regards.
Juan C. Sanz
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by "Juan C. Sanz" <ju...@hotmail.com>.
El 22/07/2011 5:10, Dennis E. Hamilton escribió:
> There are 20 Initial Committers on the OpenOffice.org incubator proposal who have not yet submitted iCLAs or informed us of their intention not to do so.
>
> Today I used the following format for a message to one of those Initial Committers.
>
> Before 19 more of these are sent out I wanted to check how understandable this is.
>
> I am particularly concerned for how clear this is for those who are not native English speakers.
>
> I welcome your advice.
>
> - Dennis
>
> *** specimen message ***
>
> From:<PPMC member>
> Sent:<today>
> To:<Initial Committer lacking iCLA so far>
> Cc: ooo-private@incubator.apache.org
> Subject:<Initial Committer Name>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
>
> Hello<Initial Committer Name>,
>
> You are listed as an Initial Committer on the proposal for the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>
> The incubator project was accepted by Apache on 2011-06-13.
>
> As an Initial Committer you are invited to be established as a committer on the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator podling. You are also invited to serve on the Podling Project Management Committee after you are established as a committer.
>
> The prerequisite to becoming established as a committer is to register an iCLA agreement with Apache.
>
> Our records indicate that no iCLA has been received from you.
>
> If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to<oo...@incubator.apache.org>. We will then know not wait for it.
>
> If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need before the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
>
> For more information and iCLA/CCLA forms, go to<http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>. Complete instructions for submission of an iCLA is at the top of the form (text or PDF).
>
> We welcome your contribution to the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>
> - the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC)
>
> *** end of specimen message ***
>
I think it's understundandable. But, what is the next step? how long do
we wait for the user id?
Regards.
Juan C. Sanz
Re: [DISCUSS] : Apache OpenOffice.org Initial
Committer Status
Posted by IngridvdM <In...@gmx-topmail.de>.
Hi Dennis,
I would suggest to do a bit less bureaucracy and delete the following
sentence:
'If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to
ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need
before the iCLA will be sent to Apache.'
I cannot see a good reason to force the decision for the remaining
initial committers. Likewise, what would the time estimation be good
for? In case someone needs to take legal advice, time estimations are
difficult anyhow.
Just kindly remind and invite them.
Rest is fine for me.
Thanks for proposing the reminder mail!
Ingrid
Am 22.07.2011 05:10, schrieb Dennis E. Hamilton:
> There are 20 Initial Committers on the OpenOffice.org incubator proposal who have not yet submitted iCLAs or informed us of their intention not to do so.
>
> Today I used the following format for a message to one of those Initial Committers.
>
> Before 19 more of these are sent out I wanted to check how understandable this is.
>
> I am particularly concerned for how clear this is for those who are not native English speakers.
>
> I welcome your advice.
>
> - Dennis
>
> *** specimen message ***
>
> From:<PPMC member>
> Sent:<today>
> To:<Initial Committer lacking iCLA so far>
> Cc: ooo-private@incubator.apache.org
> Subject:<Initial Committer Name>: Apache OpenOffice.org Initial Committer Status
>
> Hello<Initial Committer Name>,
>
> You are listed as an Initial Committer on the proposal for the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>
> The incubator project was accepted by Apache on 2011-06-13.
>
> As an Initial Committer you are invited to be established as a committer on the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator podling. You are also invited to serve on the Podling Project Management Committee after you are established as a committer.
>
> The prerequisite to becoming established as a committer is to register an iCLA agreement with Apache.
>
> Our records indicate that no iCLA has been received from you.
>
> If you do not choose to submit an iCLA, please report your decision to<oo...@incubator.apache.org>. We will then know not wait for it.
>
> If you are submitting an iCLA, please report your decision to ooo-private@incubator.apache.org and indicate how much time you need before the iCLA will be sent to Apache.
>
> For more information and iCLA/CCLA forms, go to<http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>. Complete instructions for submission of an iCLA is at the top of the form (text or PDF).
>
> We welcome your contribution to the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator project.
>
> - the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC)
>
> *** end of specimen message ***
>
>
>
>