You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by jan i <ja...@apache.org> on 2015/03/30 18:36:11 UTC
Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Hi all
Time for my first AOO Board report.
I have prepared the board report see
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+Mar
You might notice that I prefer to use a much more direct tone, than Andrea
did. That is NOT to say that Andrea did something wrong. You might also
notice the layout is different, it is to make it fit the new reporter tool,
which I wrote about earlier.
I believe we are approaching a situation where we need board involvement,
and therefore I prefer to show board to facts, so they are more prepared
when/if we decide to ask for more.
Please also be aware that the fact that we in reality have done nothing
with Digital Signing and the MAC boxes, are things that partly will fall
back on Infra (they spent quite a USD amount on us last year for these
items) and therefore influence future requests from us.
My intention is to commit the board report to the agenda April 5 (end of
this week). Clearly if we have discussions that needs to be settled before
committing the final report.
The report is in Wiki, so all with access can change it, please change
typos etc directly, but let us discuss changes in the tone/meaning.
Rgds
jan I
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 04/01/2015 11:15 AM, Marcus wrote:
> Am 04/01/2015 10:42 AM, schrieb jan i:
>> On 1 April 2015 at 09:33, Andrea Pescetti<pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we could resume some work here. At least, bring to the trunk the
>>> small list of fixes we have already available (and which I listed
>>> here on
>>> this list some weeks ago). 4.1.2 has to happen and I would like to see
>>> reflected in the Board report that the project still feels committed in
>>> getting it out as soon as possible with the current resources. So "no
>>> work
>>> is active" should become something like "work is progressing at a slow
>>> pace, but the project remains committed to delivering 4.1.2 as soon as
>>> possible". This is based on the expectation that the latter will be true
>>> and more visible when the Board report is committed: I will also try
>>> to go
>>> back to the list of bugs later this week.
>>>
>> I agree that we are committed to bringing out the release (changed
>> text to
>> reflect that) and that we could and should resume some work here, but
>> that
>> is future and the report is about the last 3 months, so I prefer to keep
>> the "no work is active". I would be more than happy to report next time,
>> that we have actually managed to bring out a release.
>
> +1, I also see the current development of 4.1.2 as stalled. I don't see:
>
> - applications for the release manager - even not after 2 (?) callouts.
> - tests with the new certification environment
> - bugfixes or committs that would support directly the release
This last comment is interesting and I think deserves a bit more
elaboration. Maybe we should discuss this in a separate thread and add
the outcome of that discussion to the Release Planning Template --
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release+Planning+Template
I'm interpreting your last item to mean we, as a group, need to
determine what constitutes "Feature Freeze" and "Start" from that
document. Previously, this has kind fo been driven by the Release
Manager, but it doesn't have to be.
>
> Sure, I can be wrong and have missed the crucial mails. But currently
> that is my impression and opinion.
>
> Marcus
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
“What is the point of being alive if you don't
at least try to do something remarkable?”
-- John Green, "An Abundance of Katherines"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 04/01/2015 10:42 AM, schrieb jan i:
> On 1 April 2015 at 09:33, Andrea Pescetti<pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think we could resume some work here. At least, bring to the trunk the
>> small list of fixes we have already available (and which I listed here on
>> this list some weeks ago). 4.1.2 has to happen and I would like to see
>> reflected in the Board report that the project still feels committed in
>> getting it out as soon as possible with the current resources. So "no work
>> is active" should become something like "work is progressing at a slow
>> pace, but the project remains committed to delivering 4.1.2 as soon as
>> possible". This is based on the expectation that the latter will be true
>> and more visible when the Board report is committed: I will also try to go
>> back to the list of bugs later this week.
>>
> I agree that we are committed to bringing out the release (changed text to
> reflect that) and that we could and should resume some work here, but that
> is future and the report is about the last 3 months, so I prefer to keep
> the "no work is active". I would be more than happy to report next time,
> that we have actually managed to bring out a release.
+1, I also see the current development of 4.1.2 as stalled. I don't see:
- applications for the release manager - even not after 2 (?) callouts.
- tests with the new certification environment
- bugfixes or committs that would support directly the release
Sure, I can be wrong and have missed the crucial mails. But currently
that is my impression and opinion.
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
I have now filed a new board report. I have done so, to give us time to
rethink
the report. I apologize for not having sought consensus on the new report,
but speed was essential, to stop a discussion on board@, I hope the
community
will support my action.
Just to avoid any misunderstanding, the PMC supported the old report, and
nobody
in the PMC has asked to withdraw the old report
This is a copy of the new report:
--------
Based on the reactions on this Mailing List, I as chair, have filed a press
conform report,
hoping the AOO community will support my action.
A new discussion is started on AOO dev@ to formulate a report, that has
consensus in
the AOO community (which the old one had) as well as satisfies the readers
of this mailing
list. I do not expect that discussion to be finalized in time for the board
meeting.
As Chair and member I would like to raise my concern, that this discussion,
which basically
ask me to void a public consensus discussion, takes place on a private
list, without the
participation of the AOO community.
Everybody who has an opinion on the content of the AOO board report, are
more than welcome,
to participate in the public discussion on dev@ but please stop discussing,
in a place where the
AOO community cannot participate.
committed board report:
------------
## Description:
Apache OpenOffice is an open-source, office-document productivity
suite providing six productivity applications based around the
OpenDocument Format (ODF). OpenOffice is released on multiple
platforms and in dozens of languages.
## Activity:
No new activity, not already covered in the jannuary report.
## Issues:
No urgent issues, not already reported.
## PMC/Committership changes:
- Currently 140 committers and 29 PMC members in the project.
- New PMC members:
- Jan Iversen was added to the PMC on Wed Feb 11 2015
- Mechtilde Stehmann was added to the PMC on Sat Jan 03 2015
- Dr. Michael Stehmann was added to the PMC on Sat Jan 03 2015
- Dennis E. Hamilton was added to the PMC on Fri Feb 13 2015
- Last committer addition was Tal Daniel at Tue Apr 29 2014
## Releases:
- Last release was 4.1.1 on Thu Aug 21 2014
## Mailing list activity:
- users@openoffice.apache.org:
- 569 subscribers (down -16 in the last 3 months):
- 917 emails sent to list (866 in previous quarter)
- dev@openoffice.apache.org:
- 500 subscribers (up 0 in the last 3 months):
- 1377 emails sent to list (1195 in previous quarter)
------------
Now please let us have an open discussion about the content of the report,
and to me more importantly which signal we want to sent.
The old report was negative, but based on facts. My goal was to do a
wake-up call, instead of continuing the "no news is good news" we have been
using for quite a while.
Rgds
jan i.
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>
wrote:
>
> I suggested (that is the word suggested; and yes it was me!) that some
> sentences be
> reworded slightly - to say the same thing, but in a more positive light,
> in such a way
> as that it might actually encourage more folks to step forward. That is
> what is needed
> here right?
>
I would usually agree with this sentiment, were it not for the fact that
exactly that strategy has been used for all previous Board reports from AOO
and yet we have still seen the decline in participation that [LWN has
reported][1]. Given that decline -- which appears to have continued -- and
the resulting lack of a release manager and of any active core code feature
implementers on the project, it seems appropriate to make a report to the
Board that highlights those facts rather than tries to make everything seem
OK.
S.
[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/637735/
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
> On 06 Apr 2015, at 02:09, jonathon <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Whilst the positive present tense is the least likely to be
> misunderstood, it also is the format that minimizes the probability of
> negative consequences, if things are not rectified.
Agreed.
I’m also sympathetic to Simon’s point, viz., that issuing a blandishment is disingenuous at best.
I should think that the problems facing AOO can (and likely will) affect any derived or downstream product.
-louis
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by jonathon <to...@gmail.com>.
On 05/04/15 08:57, Gavin McDonald wrote:
> Sure, if a project is in trouble, then that needs to be reported, but there are ways of doing so.
From several perspectives, the AOO project has been in trouble since
_before_ it entered incubation.
At this point, the most diplomatic thing is to say: "we have major
problems", and list them, without using the positive present tense.
In as much as there have been no candidates for a position, it is
counterproductive to say "The search continues for someone to step up to
the very challenging role as the next Release Manager (RM) for the next
public release of Apache OpenOffice. This mammoth task requires
dedication and commitment over a period of time", rather than "Nobody
has shown interest in becoming the new release manager, which has been
missing for the last 5 months."
Whilst the positive present tense is the least likely to be
misunderstood, it also is the format that minimizes the probability of
negative consequences, if things are not rectified.
jonathon
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Gavin,
2015-04-05 10:57 GMT+02:00 Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>:
>
> > On 5 Apr 2015, at 8:07 am, Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jan,
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> > 2015-04-05 8:20 GMT+02:00 jan i <ja...@apache.org>:
> >
> >> On Sunday, April 5, 2015, jonathon <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 05/04/15 00:37, jan i wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative
> >> and
> >>> against the wishes of the community
> >>>
> >>> I'm going to suggest that said PMC Member was simply shocked at the
> >>> radical difference in reporting styles.
> >>
> >
> > Is it so important ? What are the possible consequences of a "bad
> report" ?
> > I thought it was only a simple information about the activities in a
> > project.
>
> Ok so I think a negative report can have a negative impact on a community,
> rather
> than encouraging more volunteer time it may be seen as all doom and gloom
> and
> perhaps push potential volunteers away.
>
> Sure, if a project is in trouble, then that needs to be reported, but
> there are ways of
> doing so.
>
> If someone new pops up on a project and sees doom and gloom, sees the
> folks that
> are already there talking down the project, instead of talking it up, I
> reckon they’ll
> turn tail and scarper.
>
> I suggested (that is the word suggested; and yes it was me!) that some
> sentences be
> reworded slightly - to say the same thing, but in a more positive light,
> in such a way
> as that it might actually encourage more folks to step forward. That is
> what is needed
> here right?
>
I understand perfectly your point of view, but for me, changing the
wrapping paper will not change
the content of the box. Your version is certainly more diplomatic, the
pill goes better, but the difficulties
described are a reality and sooner or later they will come back on the mat.
The arrival of new volunteers is not a magic solution. We must also have
the strategy to coach them when they are before the door.
Regards
--
gw
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
> On 5 Apr 2015, at 8:07 am, Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jan,
> Hi all,
>
>
> 2015-04-05 8:20 GMT+02:00 jan i <ja...@apache.org>:
>
>> On Sunday, April 5, 2015, jonathon <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/04/15 00:37, jan i wrote:
>>>
>>>> felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative
>> and
>>> against the wishes of the community
>>>
>>> I'm going to suggest that said PMC Member was simply shocked at the
>>> radical difference in reporting styles.
>>
>
> Is it so important ? What are the possible consequences of a "bad report" ?
> I thought it was only a simple information about the activities in a
> project.
Ok so I think a negative report can have a negative impact on a community, rather
than encouraging more volunteer time it may be seen as all doom and gloom and
perhaps push potential volunteers away.
Sure, if a project is in trouble, then that needs to be reported, but there are ways of
doing so.
If someone new pops up on a project and sees doom and gloom, sees the folks that
are already there talking down the project, instead of talking it up, I reckon they’ll
turn tail and scarper.
I suggested (that is the word suggested; and yes it was me!) that some sentences be
reworded slightly - to say the same thing, but in a more positive light, in such a way
as that it might actually encourage more folks to step forward. That is what is needed
here right?
I’ll post my reworded version of the original submitted community consensus report
on this list for folks to mull over.
Again, it was clear that I made suggestions, and I also made it clear that everyone was
free to ignore any and all of them and submit the report as is. I felt by making those
suggestions, it may help the project.
You folks are doing a grand job here, and so you’ll do whats best.
Gav…
>
> Regards
> --
> gw
>
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jan,
Hi all,
2015-04-05 8:20 GMT+02:00 jan i <ja...@apache.org>:
> On Sunday, April 5, 2015, jonathon <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 05/04/15 00:37, jan i wrote:
> >
> > > felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative
> and
> > against the wishes of the community
> >
> > I'm going to suggest that said PMC Member was simply shocked at the
> > radical difference in reporting styles.
>
Is it so important ? What are the possible consequences of a "bad report" ?
I thought it was only a simple information about the activities in a
project.
Regards
--
gw
>
>
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 5 April 2015 at 12:35, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 11:49:44AM +0200, jan i wrote:
> >...
> > I have never thought or said this was about my person, it has nothing to
> do
> > with my person.
> > It has to do with the free will of a community versus discussions on
> > private list outside the reach of the community.
>
> As the AOO VP, it is your responsibility to bring concerns from those
> private lists, back to this public list/community. The Foundation does
> not participate on this mailing list, but it *does* have concerns and
> feedback. Thus, the Foundation appoints VP to act as the go-between,
> and expects the VP to perform that role as a liaison.
>
> > Fact is, that I have received multiple "suggestions" on the private board
> > list to implement some of your wording or similar wording, these mails
> (not
> > from you, but a reaction to your mail) ignores the fact, that there was
> > consensus in the community to submit the report.
>
> Incorrect. None of the responses even implied such a problem. Absent
> such, and as *usual* for the board mailing list, it was absolutely
> recognized this was the AOO report submitted by the PMC and its
> community. Some edits/suggestions were made. That is all. Nothing more.
>
> > For reference, your wording was in a mail to a private list, so only the
> > PMC has seen the content.
>
> Yes.
>
> > I have on the private board list rejected to change the wording, without
> a
> > public discussion
> > on this list.
>
> That's your prerogative. For myself, I have great concern about how
> you *carried* those concerns back to the community. Your job as VP is
> to bring concerns from the Foundation to the community, and to bring
> community concerns to the Foundation.
>
> Doing a full-reset on the report isn't constructive.
>
I simply do not get it !!!
I replaced the original board report in the agenda, with a dummy report, to
prevent
the original report from accidentally go to the board meeting.
The original report still sits untouched in our cwiki, where it belongs as
long as
we discuss it.
Please do not escalate this into something it is not. Replacing the report
in the
board agenda is a protective action, where a full-reset would be a highly
offensive
action, which I have NOT done, nor had intention of doing.
rgds
jan i.
>
> > > Please lets not over-react to what was just some helpful notes.
> >
> > I actually took your mail positively, and based on your mail started a
> > discussion with the PMC, if we should change the wording. I would have
> > wished you had participated in the
> > original public discussion.
>
> The Foundation does not participate on all dev@ lists. You should
> expect feedback from all corners, and from people who do not
> participate here. Again: your job is to bring *that* feedback back
> here for further contemplation.
>
> It is not reasonable to expect all Directors and ASF Members and
> others to participate here, to formulate your report to the Board. But
> you *should* expect those others to respond to a submitted report.
> They will see it when the report gets submitted, and will review it at
> that time.
>
> > But the mails that followed suggesting that I should change the report
> are
> > an, to me, unacceptable attempt to bypass the community.
>
> Nobody suggested you change it unilaterally. Stop mischaracterizing
> the suggestions. Again, as VP your job is to bring those concerns,
> suggestions, and edits to the community if you feel that is proper.
>
> Nobody told you what to do. You made the choices on pulling the
> report, and (mis)characterizing the feedback.
>
> > Thanks for presenting your very relavant views in public, and let us get
> > consensus on a text
> > acceptable both to this community and the readers of the board list.
>
> You do not have to do anything for the readers of the board list. That
> is your mistake. And it was only a few people. The board list has over
> a hundred people on it.
>
> Your report needs to come from the community, and be reported to the
> Board. That is quite simple. The Board accepts 99% of the reports
> submitted. There are some that get rejected (like the one you've left
> in the agenda right now). But there are also MANY that receive
> feedback and get updated before the Board reviews/discusses them. So.
> Be like those other folks. Take some feedback. Discuss it. Update.
>
> -g
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 11:49:44AM +0200, jan i wrote:
>...
> I have never thought or said this was about my person, it has nothing to do
> with my person.
> It has to do with the free will of a community versus discussions on
> private list outside the reach of the community.
As the AOO VP, it is your responsibility to bring concerns from those
private lists, back to this public list/community. The Foundation does
not participate on this mailing list, but it *does* have concerns and
feedback. Thus, the Foundation appoints VP to act as the go-between,
and expects the VP to perform that role as a liaison.
> Fact is, that I have received multiple "suggestions" on the private board
> list to implement some of your wording or similar wording, these mails (not
> from you, but a reaction to your mail) ignores the fact, that there was
> consensus in the community to submit the report.
Incorrect. None of the responses even implied such a problem. Absent
such, and as *usual* for the board mailing list, it was absolutely
recognized this was the AOO report submitted by the PMC and its
community. Some edits/suggestions were made. That is all. Nothing more.
> For reference, your wording was in a mail to a private list, so only the
> PMC has seen the content.
Yes.
> I have on the private board list rejected to change the wording, without a
> public discussion
> on this list.
That's your prerogative. For myself, I have great concern about how
you *carried* those concerns back to the community. Your job as VP is
to bring concerns from the Foundation to the community, and to bring
community concerns to the Foundation.
Doing a full-reset on the report isn't constructive.
> > Please lets not over-react to what was just some helpful notes.
>
> I actually took your mail positively, and based on your mail started a
> discussion with the PMC, if we should change the wording. I would have
> wished you had participated in the
> original public discussion.
The Foundation does not participate on all dev@ lists. You should
expect feedback from all corners, and from people who do not
participate here. Again: your job is to bring *that* feedback back
here for further contemplation.
It is not reasonable to expect all Directors and ASF Members and
others to participate here, to formulate your report to the Board. But
you *should* expect those others to respond to a submitted report.
They will see it when the report gets submitted, and will review it at
that time.
> But the mails that followed suggesting that I should change the report are
> an, to me, unacceptable attempt to bypass the community.
Nobody suggested you change it unilaterally. Stop mischaracterizing
the suggestions. Again, as VP your job is to bring those concerns,
suggestions, and edits to the community if you feel that is proper.
Nobody told you what to do. You made the choices on pulling the
report, and (mis)characterizing the feedback.
> Thanks for presenting your very relavant views in public, and let us get
> consensus on a text
> acceptable both to this community and the readers of the board list.
You do not have to do anything for the readers of the board list. That
is your mistake. And it was only a few people. The board list has over
a hundred people on it.
Your report needs to come from the community, and be reported to the
Board. That is quite simple. The Board accepts 99% of the reports
submitted. There are some that get rejected (like the one you've left
in the agenda right now). But there are also MANY that receive
feedback and get updated before the Board reviews/discusses them. So.
Be like those other folks. Take some feedback. Discuss it. Update.
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On Sunday, April 5, 2015, Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On 5 Apr 2015, at 7:20 am, jan i <jani@apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, April 5, 2015, jonathon <toki.kantoor@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >> On 05/04/15 00:37, jan i wrote:
> >>
> >>> felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative
> and
> >> against the wishes of the community
> >>
> >> I'm going to suggest that said PMC Member was simply shocked at the
> >> radical difference in reporting styles.
> >
> > Just to clarify, this did not come from a AOO PMC! It came from a ASF
> Member
> > who read the board mailing list.
>
> Yep, that was me.
>
> > No AOO PMC has at this point in time,
> > written that I
> > have acted against the interest of the community.
>
> And neither did I — in fact you couldn’t act against the interest of the
> community
> because you posted a report created by the community , correct?
I cannot quote your enail, but there is a sentence in there suggesting very
directly, that the
wording used, was not what the community wanted. I am sure your suggestions
was sent
with a positive attitude, but we should not discuss what the comnunity want
on a list the community cannot read.
>
> So I made ‘suggestions’ based on a community based board report.
>
> In other words, none of this is an attack on you Jan, or an attack of any
> kind.
I have never thought or said this was about my person, it has nothing to do
with my person.
It has to do with the free will of a community versus discussions on
private list outside the reach of the community.
Fact is, that I have received multiple "suggestions" on the private board
list to implement some of your wording or similar wording, these mails (not
from you, but a reaction to your mail) ignores the fact, that there was
consensus in the community to submit the report.
For reference, your wording was in a mail to a private list, so only the
PMC has seen the content.
I have on the private board list rejected to change the wording, without a
public discussion
on this list.
>
> Please lets not over-react to what was just some helpful notes.
I actually took your mail positively, and based on your mail started a
discussion with the PMC, if we should change the wording. I would have
wished you had participated in the
original public discussion.
But the mails that followed suggesting that I should change the report are
an, to me, unacceptable attempt to bypass the community.
Thanks for presenting your very relavant views in public, and let us get
consensus on a text
acceptable both to this community and the readers of the board list.
rgds
jan i
>
> Gav…
>
> >
> >
> >> You (Jan) do not like negative surprises. Consequently, your reports
> >> reflect that POV.
> >> Andrea is more surprise-tolerant, and consequently reports reflect that
> >> POV.
> >>
> >> Both reports are accurate. The difference is simply one of managerial
> >> style --- mention potential risks, or only mention documented risks.
> >> Both styles have their virtues. Both styles have their vices. The
> >> people kicked upstairs can be traumatized by the difference in reporting
> >> styles, during the transition process.
> >
> > Agreed, I will however, due to pressure, from non AOO PMC, change the
> > report, and have a new discussion start on this mailing list. I have
> asked
> > the
> > people in question to come forward in here and explain their opinions.
> >
> > I apologize to the community, for not having realized that consensus in
> > AOO,
> > is not enough, when making a board report.
> >
> > rgds
> > jan i
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> jonathon
> >>
> >> * English - detected
> >> * English
> >>
> >> * English
> >>
> >> <javascript:void(0);>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
>
>
--
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
> On 5 Apr 2015, at 7:20 am, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Sunday, April 5, 2015, jonathon <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/04/15 00:37, jan i wrote:
>>
>>> felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative and
>> against the wishes of the community
>>
>> I'm going to suggest that said PMC Member was simply shocked at the
>> radical difference in reporting styles.
>
> Just to clarify, this did not come from a AOO PMC! It came from a ASF Member
> who read the board mailing list.
Yep, that was me.
> No AOO PMC has at this point in time,
> written that I
> have acted against the interest of the community.
And neither did I — in fact you couldn’t act against the interest of the community
because you posted a report created by the community , correct?
So I made ‘suggestions’ based on a community based board report.
In other words, none of this is an attack on you Jan, or an attack of any kind.
Please lets not over-react to what was just some helpful notes.
Gav…
>
>
>> You (Jan) do not like negative surprises. Consequently, your reports
>> reflect that POV.
>> Andrea is more surprise-tolerant, and consequently reports reflect that
>> POV.
>>
>> Both reports are accurate. The difference is simply one of managerial
>> style --- mention potential risks, or only mention documented risks.
>> Both styles have their virtues. Both styles have their vices. The
>> people kicked upstairs can be traumatized by the difference in reporting
>> styles, during the transition process.
>
> Agreed, I will however, due to pressure, from non AOO PMC, change the
> report, and have a new discussion start on this mailing list. I have asked
> the
> people in question to come forward in here and explain their opinions.
>
> I apologize to the community, for not having realized that consensus in
> AOO,
> is not enough, when making a board report.
>
> rgds
> jan i
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> jonathon
>>
>> * English - detected
>> * English
>>
>> * English
>>
>> <javascript:void(0);>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On Sunday, April 5, 2015, jonathon <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/04/15 00:37, jan i wrote:
>
> > felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative and
> against the wishes of the community
>
> I'm going to suggest that said PMC Member was simply shocked at the
> radical difference in reporting styles.
Just to clarify, this did not come from a AOO PMC! It came from a ASF Member
who read the board mailing list. No AOO PMC has at this point in time,
written that I
have acted against the interest of the community.
> You (Jan) do not like negative surprises. Consequently, your reports
> reflect that POV.
> Andrea is more surprise-tolerant, and consequently reports reflect that
> POV.
>
> Both reports are accurate. The difference is simply one of managerial
> style --- mention potential risks, or only mention documented risks.
> Both styles have their virtues. Both styles have their vices. The
> people kicked upstairs can be traumatized by the difference in reporting
> styles, during the transition process.
Agreed, I will however, due to pressure, from non AOO PMC, change the
report, and have a new discussion start on this mailing list. I have asked
the
people in question to come forward in here and explain their opinions.
I apologize to the community, for not having realized that consensus in
AOO,
is not enough, when making a board report.
rgds
jan i
>
>
>
> jonathon
>
> * English - detected
> * English
>
> * English
>
> <javascript:void(0);>
>
>
--
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by jonathon <to...@gmail.com>.
On 05/04/15 00:37, jan i wrote:
> felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative and against the wishes of the community
I'm going to suggest that said PMC Member was simply shocked at the
radical difference in reporting styles.
You (Jan) do not like negative surprises. Consequently, your reports
reflect that POV.
Andrea is more surprise-tolerant, and consequently reports reflect that
POV.
Both reports are accurate. The difference is simply one of managerial
style --- mention potential risks, or only mention documented risks.
Both styles have their virtues. Both styles have their vices. The
people kicked upstairs can be traumatized by the difference in reporting
styles, during the transition process.
jonathon
* English - detected
* English
* English
<javascript:void(0);>
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On Sunday, April 5, 2015, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 02:37:46AM +0200, jan i wrote:
> >...
> > Background is that after the report was submitted, a ASF Member (not
> board
> > member and not part of our community)
> > felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative and
> > against the wishes of the community
>
> "against the wishes of the community" is simply untrue. That was never
> said. Else-thread, Gavin has said he hoped for a more positive report
> that wouldn't scare people away. ... at no point, in his original
> message, or any other message, did people say the report was not
> representative of the AOO community. Totally false.
I was about to give proof, that I was not "untrue", but I will let Gavin
decide, if he
wants to make that sentence public, since I have received a private mail
from you.
>
> Then, you effectively deleted the Board report out of the meeting
> agenda, pending further discussion here. That is certainly the wrong
> path. IMO, the most appropriate response would be to just bring the
> concerns about positive/negative, and then discuss modifications.
I agree it was an extreme measure, but leaving the report untouched would
have
continued the discussions on the board list, so I had to chose between 2
bad choices.
You have the full right to feel I should have acted differently, but I
stand by my actions.
>
> Lastly: the submission deadline is April 10. The Board is likely to
> postpone its meeting by a week, giving the AOO PMC yet another week to
> (re)submit a report.
>
This is good news, hopefully we, the community, can reach consensus and
submit
a new real report.
rgds
jan I.
>
> -g
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 02:37:46AM +0200, jan i wrote:
>...
> Background is that after the report was submitted, a ASF Member (not board
> member and not part of our community)
> felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative and
> against the wishes of the community
"against the wishes of the community" is simply untrue. That was never
said. Else-thread, Gavin has said he hoped for a more positive report
that wouldn't scare people away. ... at no point, in his original
message, or any other message, did people say the report was not
representative of the AOO community. Totally false.
Then, you effectively deleted the Board report out of the meeting
agenda, pending further discussion here. That is certainly the wrong
path. IMO, the most appropriate response would be to just bring the
concerns about positive/negative, and then discuss modifications.
Lastly: the submission deadline is April 10. The Board is likely to
postpone its meeting by a week, giving the AOO PMC yet another week to
(re)submit a report.
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 02:17:01AM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
>...
> The report should stand as-is rather than be voided by a private request
> that seems to fly in the face of the public evidence.
Agreed, Simon. Jan "voided" the report after feedback from (3) individuals,
speaking as such. The only entity which can direct the PMC is the
Board, and it certainly didn't speak up. This was Jan's choice/decision.
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Gavin McDonald <ga...@16degrees.com.au>.
> On 5 Apr 2015, at 2:17 am, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 5 Apr 2015 02:05, "jan i" <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I can
>> replace the report with a short note stating the I (as chair) have removed
>> it, because the community need more
>> time to discuss the content.
>>
>
> That seems crazy, given the long review window and the absence of criticism
> on this list. The report was openly discussed for longer than I recall any
> other Board report. Any member claiming there was community opposition
> should produce evidence to that effect.
Ok so nobody has said there was any community opposition at all. I thought
that the report was worded negatively and suggested a few changes to give
it a more positive flow that might help the project.
>
> The report should stand as-is rather than be voided by a private request
> that seems to fly in the face of the public evidence.
My suggestions were just that, and I made it clear they could be incorporated
or ignored at leisure. I’m totally fine with whatever is decided.
Gav…
>
> S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 5 Apr 2015 02:05, "jan i" <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> I can
> replace the report with a short note stating the I (as chair) have removed
> it, because the community need more
> time to discuss the content.
>
That seems crazy, given the long review window and the absence of criticism
on this list. The report was openly discussed for longer than I recall any
other Board report. Any member claiming there was community opposition
should produce evidence to that effect.
The report should stand as-is rather than be voided by a private request
that seems to fly in the face of the public evidence.
S.
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
Sorry for top posting.
I have been asked by a PMC member to reopen the discussion about the board
report.
Background is that after the report was submitted, a ASF Member (not board
member and not part of our community)
felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative and
against the wishes of the community
(ASF Members can read board@ to get the precise wording).
I have sent the report exactly, as it is in our Wiki, only appended with a
"for board eyes only" statement, that has
been thoroughly discussed on private@. I hope nobody in the community feels
they have not been given a fair
chance to ask for changes.
I politely ask the people who now wants the report changed, to show how the
report should look, and let the
community discuss. If the community wants the report formulated
differently, I will be happy to replace the
current report.
We do have a timing challenge, and need to act fast before the reporting
window closes, alternatively I can
replace the report with a short note stating the I (as chair) have removed
it, because the community need more
time to discuss the content.
rgds
jan I.
On 4 April 2015 at 11:48, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 01/04/2015 jan i wrote:
>
>> On 1 April 2015 at 09:33, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>>> Big thanks are not for the report. But still very appropriate for the
>>> list... so big thanks to who worked for events! ...
>>>
>> Actually before I became member I was mentioned in 5-6 board reports like
>> that
>>
>
> For project reports I find it more appropriate to simply give credit, like
> "X Y organized an OpenOffice event" as opposed to "Big thanks to X Y for
> organizing an OpenOffice event". But the version now online is OK.
>
> I use AOO on purpose in reports, because is the
>> project, I use Apache openOffice when referring to something that includes
>> our ecosystem, and openOffice when referring to the office suite and
>> ecosystem in general.
>>
>
> I'm not sure about this. It is just wording after all, nothing to change
> in the report; but Apache OpenOffice is OpenOffice and OpenOffice is Apache
> OpenOffice (and nothing else); if someone wants to speak about "OpenOffice
> and others" then "OpenOffice ecosystem" is more explicit and clear (even if
> I don't love this terminology).
>
> I agree that we are committed to bringing out the release (changed text to
>> reflect that) and that we could and should resume some work here, but that
>> is future and the report is about the last 3 months, so I prefer to keep
>> the "no work is active".
>>
>
> Well, I agree it's time to stop talking about what to write in the report
> and to resume some of the work I had already sent here weeks ago...
>
> Have a look at the changes, and let me know if they are ok to you.
>>
>
> They are OK. My remaining concerns are:
> - Title and link: this is the "2015-Apr" report, not the March one.
> - Forum is not mentioned anywhere; at least a sentence like "The official,
> volunteer-run, OpenOffice support Forums remain very popular with users"
> would be appropriate.
>
> And thanks a lot for giving the community time to discuss the report at
> length.
>
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 01/04/2015 jan i wrote:
> On 1 April 2015 at 09:33, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> Big thanks are not for the report. But still very appropriate for the
>> list... so big thanks to who worked for events! ...
> Actually before I became member I was mentioned in 5-6 board reports like
> that
For project reports I find it more appropriate to simply give credit,
like "X Y organized an OpenOffice event" as opposed to "Big thanks to X
Y for organizing an OpenOffice event". But the version now online is OK.
> I use AOO on purpose in reports, because is the
> project, I use Apache openOffice when referring to something that includes
> our ecosystem, and openOffice when referring to the office suite and
> ecosystem in general.
I'm not sure about this. It is just wording after all, nothing to change
in the report; but Apache OpenOffice is OpenOffice and OpenOffice is
Apache OpenOffice (and nothing else); if someone wants to speak about
"OpenOffice and others" then "OpenOffice ecosystem" is more explicit and
clear (even if I don't love this terminology).
> I agree that we are committed to bringing out the release (changed text to
> reflect that) and that we could and should resume some work here, but that
> is future and the report is about the last 3 months, so I prefer to keep
> the "no work is active".
Well, I agree it's time to stop talking about what to write in the
report and to resume some of the work I had already sent here weeks ago...
> Have a look at the changes, and let me know if they are ok to you.
They are OK. My remaining concerns are:
- Title and link: this is the "2015-Apr" report, not the March one.
- Forum is not mentioned anywhere; at least a sentence like "The
official, volunteer-run, OpenOffice support Forums remain very popular
with users" would be appropriate.
And thanks a lot for giving the community time to discuss the report at
length.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 1 April 2015 at 09:33, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 30/03/2015 jan i wrote:
>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+Mar
>> You might notice that I prefer to use a much more direct tone, than Andrea
>> did.
>>
>
> Looks very good, tone is OK too, what was appropriate three months ago is
> not necessarily appropriate now.
>
> The report is in Wiki, so all with access can change it, please change
>> typos etc directly, but let us discuss changes in the tone/meaning.
>>
>
> Comments below.
>
> The mailing lists for users and the development list are fairly active,
>> the remainder of the lists are experiencing low activity (see later on
>> development activity).
>>
>
> If you go through the lists (in the new automatic section with numbers),
> both l10n and QA have more messages than the previous quarter, so this "low
> activity" for those list is not something new or bad: it is simply obvious
> that the l10n list will have less traffic than this list. So I would simply
> state "...while specialized lists see a lower, but steady, activity".
>
changed.
>
> New volunteers for development showup regularly, but without mentors
>> we have not been able to keep them motivated and on the project.
>>
>> Nobody has shown interest in becoming the new release manager, which
>> have been missing for approx. last 5 months,
>>
>> The 2 MAC (buildbot) delivered Q3 2014 from Infra are not operational,
>> due to lack of a volunteer to install the AOO development platform.
>>
>> Proof of concept for Digital Signing was made mid. 2014, no further
>> work have been done.
>>
>
> All of these are unfortunately true and to be addressed... Report is OK as
> it is, description is accurate. Maybe on the first item we could actually
> say that we have been able to commit simple fixes (again, this is quite
> unchanged with respect to the past).
>
added with a bit different wording.
>
> OpenOffice was present at FOSDEM, both with talks as well as a
>> table (a big thanks to Stehmanns and the speakers).
>> A BoF is being arranged for CSDN OSTC by Imacat.
>>
>
> Big thanks are not for the report. But still very appropriate for the
> list... so big thanks to who worked for events! I would add some context if
> you have it, like "FOSDEM (January 2015 in Brussels, Belgium)" and "CSDN
> OSTC (March? 2015, Beijing?)". Just to put the events in context.
>
Actually before I became member I was mentioned in 5-6 board reports like
that, which is a good way to put attention to people. I have changed the
text.
>
> ## Issues:
>> The current CMS discussion, which leaves projects to find their
>> own tools, will cause a significant problem for AOO. The AOO Web pages
>> depend on the features of CMS. If Infra is to stop the service,
>> AOO will need to either only maintain only a few pages or run
>> CMS on a project VM. The Board should remember to look at the
>> total cost of this change, not only the Infra costs.
>>
>
> It is a discussion, so rather than "will cause" I would phrase it in terms
> of POTENTIAL problems. Infra has clarified that this is not to be taken as
> a decision they made, but as an occasion for discussion.
>
> Something like "The current CMS discussion based on a proposal to
> decommission the tool and ask projects to find other solutions would cause
> a significant problem for OpenOffice [side note: we have a name we should
> be proud of, and I prefer we use our name and not "AOO" in the reports;
> this is a small detail, I mention it here since it occurs to me here and I
> can live with "AOO" in the report too, where it is clear what we mean]. The
> OpenOffice website depends on several features of the CMS that cannot be
> easily ported to other tools. The CMS has been an important tool for
> community building as it lowers the barriers for contributions, especially
> for translation volunteers. If Infra..."
>
Changed part of it. I use AOO on purpose in reports, because is the
project, I use Apache openOffice when referring to something that includes
our ecosystem, and openOffice when referring to the office suite and
ecosystem in general.
>
> The current activity level (practically no development) combined
>> with minimal interest in discussing solutions, is a potential
>> problem, that might cause a community breakdown. The community
>> only has a few developers left, which makes a bootstrap very
>> complex. Please consider this as important information, more
>> will follow in the next board report.
>>
>
> This is OK, but the first time I read this I thought it still referred to
> the CMS. So maybe it's better to introduce it with a sentence like "A major
> issue OpenOffice is facing is a slowdown in development".
>
you are right, I added a new start.
>
> ## Releases:
>> - Last release was 4.1.1 on Thu Aug 21 2014
>> Version 4.1.2 has been in planning for approx. 5 months and
>> will be the first digitally signed release. It is still not
>> decided which bugfixes should be included. Due to lack of
>> developers (to make the bugfixes) and a release manager no work is active.
>>
>
> I think we could resume some work here. At least, bring to the trunk the
> small list of fixes we have already available (and which I listed here on
> this list some weeks ago). 4.1.2 has to happen and I would like to see
> reflected in the Board report that the project still feels committed in
> getting it out as soon as possible with the current resources. So "no work
> is active" should become something like "work is progressing at a slow
> pace, but the project remains committed to delivering 4.1.2 as soon as
> possible". This is based on the expectation that the latter will be true
> and more visible when the Board report is committed: I will also try to go
> back to the list of bugs later this week.
>
I agree that we are committed to bringing out the release (changed text to
reflect that) and that we could and should resume some work here, but that
is future and the report is about the last 3 months, so I prefer to keep
the "no work is active". I would be more than happy to report next time,
that we have actually managed to bring out a release.
Have a look at the changes, and let me know if they are ok to you.
rgds
jan I.
ps. thanks for correcting the typo, which was a copy/paste from a change
marcus suggested.
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 30/03/2015 jan i wrote:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+Mar
> You might notice that I prefer to use a much more direct tone, than Andrea
> did.
Looks very good, tone is OK too, what was appropriate three months ago
is not necessarily appropriate now.
> The report is in Wiki, so all with access can change it, please change
> typos etc directly, but let us discuss changes in the tone/meaning.
Comments below.
> The mailing lists for users and the development list are fairly active,
> the remainder of the lists are experiencing low activity (see later on
> development activity).
If you go through the lists (in the new automatic section with numbers),
both l10n and QA have more messages than the previous quarter, so this
"low activity" for those list is not something new or bad: it is simply
obvious that the l10n list will have less traffic than this list. So I
would simply state "...while specialized lists see a lower, but steady,
activity".
> New volunteers for development showup regularly, but without mentors
> we have not been able to keep them motivated and on the project.
>
> Nobody has shown interest in becoming the new release manager, which
> have been missing for approx. last 5 months,
>
> The 2 MAC (buildbot) delivered Q3 2014 from Infra are not operational,
> due to lack of a volunteer to install the AOO development platform.
>
> Proof of concept for Digital Signing was made mid. 2014, no further
> work have been done.
All of these are unfortunately true and to be addressed... Report is OK
as it is, description is accurate. Maybe on the first item we could
actually say that we have been able to commit simple fixes (again, this
is quite unchanged with respect to the past).
> OpenOffice was present at FOSDEM, both with talks as well as a
> table (a big thanks to Stehmanns and the speakers).
> A BoF is being arranged for CSDN OSTC by Imacat.
Big thanks are not for the report. But still very appropriate for the
list... so big thanks to who worked for events! I would add some context
if you have it, like "FOSDEM (January 2015 in Brussels, Belgium)" and
"CSDN OSTC (March? 2015, Beijing?)". Just to put the events in context.
> ## Issues:
> The current CMS discussion, which leaves projects to find their
> own tools, will cause a significant problem for AOO. The AOO Web pages
> depend on the features of CMS. If Infra is to stop the service,
> AOO will need to either only maintain only a few pages or run
> CMS on a project VM. The Board should remember to look at the
> total cost of this change, not only the Infra costs.
It is a discussion, so rather than "will cause" I would phrase it in
terms of POTENTIAL problems. Infra has clarified that this is not to be
taken as a decision they made, but as an occasion for discussion.
Something like "The current CMS discussion based on a proposal to
decommission the tool and ask projects to find other solutions would
cause a significant problem for OpenOffice [side note: we have a name we
should be proud of, and I prefer we use our name and not "AOO" in the
reports; this is a small detail, I mention it here since it occurs to me
here and I can live with "AOO" in the report too, where it is clear what
we mean]. The OpenOffice website depends on several features of the CMS
that cannot be easily ported to other tools. The CMS has been an
important tool for community building as it lowers the barriers for
contributions, especially for translation volunteers. If Infra..."
> The current activity level (practically no development) combined
> with minimal interest in discussing solutions, is a potential
> problem, that might cause a community breakdown. The community
> only has a few developers left, which makes a bootstrap very
> complex. Please consider this as important information, more
> will follow in the next board report.
This is OK, but the first time I read this I thought it still referred
to the CMS. So maybe it's better to introduce it with a sentence like "A
major issue OpenOffice is facing is a slowdown in development".
> ## Releases:
> - Last release was 4.1.1 on Thu Aug 21 2014
> Version 4.1.2 has been in planning for approx. 5 months and
> will be the first digitally signed release. It is still not
> decided which bugfixes should be included. Due to lack of
> developers (to make the bugfixes) and a release manager no work is active.
I think we could resume some work here. At least, bring to the trunk the
small list of fixes we have already available (and which I listed here
on this list some weeks ago). 4.1.2 has to happen and I would like to
see reflected in the Board report that the project still feels committed
in getting it out as soon as possible with the current resources. So "no
work is active" should become something like "work is progressing at a
slow pace, but the project remains committed to delivering 4.1.2 as soon
as possible". This is based on the expectation that the latter will be
true and more visible when the Board report is committed: I will also
try to go back to the list of bugs later this week.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 03/30/2015 07:29 PM, schrieb jan i:
> On 30 March 2015 at 19:16, Marcus<ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 03/30/2015 06:36 PM, schrieb jan i:
>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> but let us discuss changes in the tone/meaning.
>>>
>>
>> thanks for the report draft. Here are some remarks:
>>
>> 1.
>> - CMS discussion, ... The Board should remember to look at the
>> total cost of this change, not only the Infra costs.
>>
>> --> IMHO a good point. Thanks for mentioning this.
>>
>> 2.
>> - Releases, ... Due to lack of volunteers (especially release manager) no
>> work is active.
>>
>> --> I don't see a general problem of finding volunteers. IMHO only
>> developers for bugfixing and the release manager for coordination are
>> missing.
>>
>> 3.
>> - private@openoffice.apache.org:
>> - 507 emails sent to list (624 in previous quarter)
>>
>> --> Maybe a short senentence sould be added, like "We will try to reduce
>> the amount of unnecessary mails as it is a bit high for the private
>> mailinglist."
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>
> good points (including you other email, saving me to cause an extra email).
>
> I have updated the proposal, just changed your words a little bit. Please
> have a look.
thanks :-)
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 30 March 2015 at 19:16, Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 03/30/2015 06:36 PM, schrieb jan i:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> but let us discuss changes in the tone/meaning.
>>
>
> thanks for the report draft. Here are some remarks:
>
> 1.
> - CMS discussion, ... The Board should remember to look at the
> total cost of this change, not only the Infra costs.
>
> --> IMHO a good point. Thanks for mentioning this.
>
> 2.
> - Releases, ... Due to lack of volunteers (especially release manager) no
> work is active.
>
> --> I don't see a general problem of finding volunteers. IMHO only
> developers for bugfixing and the release manager for coordination are
> missing.
>
> 3.
> - private@openoffice.apache.org:
> - 507 emails sent to list (624 in previous quarter)
>
> --> Maybe a short senentence sould be added, like "We will try to reduce
> the amount of unnecessary mails as it is a bit high for the private
> mailinglist."
>
> Marcus
>
good points (including you other email, saving me to cause an extra email).
I have updated the proposal, just changed your words a little bit. Please
have a look.
rgds
jan i
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 03/30/2015 06:36 PM, schrieb jan i:
> [...]
>
> but let us discuss changes in the tone/meaning.
thanks for the report draft. Here are some remarks:
1.
- CMS discussion, ... The Board should remember to look at the
total cost of this change, not only the Infra costs.
--> IMHO a good point. Thanks for mentioning this.
2.
- Releases, ... Due to lack of volunteers (especially release manager)
no work is active.
--> I don't see a general problem of finding volunteers. IMHO only
developers for bugfixing and the release manager for coordination are
missing.
3.
- private@openoffice.apache.org:
- 507 emails sent to list (624 in previous quarter)
--> Maybe a short senentence sould be added, like "We will try to reduce
the amount of unnecessary mails as it is a bit high for the private
mailinglist."
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 31 March 2015 at 00:15, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 03/30/2015 02:52 PM, Marcus wrote:
> > Am 03/30/2015 11:41 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> >>
> >> On 03/30/2015 09:36 AM, jan i wrote:
> >>> Hi all
> >>>
> >>> Time for my first AOO Board report.
> >>>
> >>> I have prepared the board report see
> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+Mar
> >>>
> >>> You might notice that I prefer to use a much more direct tone, than
> >>> Andrea
> >>> did. That is NOT to say that Andrea did something wrong. You might also
> >>> notice the layout is different, it is to make it fit the new reporter
> >>> tool,
> >>> which I wrote about earlier.
> >>>
> >>> I believe we are approaching a situation where we need board
> >>> involvement,
> >>> and therefore I prefer to show board to facts, so they are more
> prepared
> >>> when/if we decide to ask for more.
> >>>
> >>> Please also be aware that the fact that we in reality have done nothing
> >>> with Digital Signing and the MAC boxes, are things that partly will
> fall
> >>> back on Infra (they spent quite a USD amount on us last year for these
> >>> items) and therefore influence future requests from us.
> >>>
> >>> My intention is to commit the board report to the agenda April 5 (end
> of
> >>> this week). Clearly if we have discussions that needs to be settled
> >>> before
> >>> committing the final report.
> >>>
> >>> The report is in Wiki, so all with access can change it, please change
> >>> typos etc directly, but let us discuss changes in the tone/meaning.
> >>>
> >>> Rgds
> >>> jan I
> >>
> >> Jan -- I think this report is fine as it stands. But I don't understand
> >> this sentence
> >>
> >> "The HP depend on the features of CMS."
> >>
> >> under "Issues". What is HP?
> >>
> >> Other than that...OK.
> >
> > that means homepage. ;-)
> >
> > Marcus
>
> Thank you!
>
I think I am too used to be around Infra, that I forget not to use such
expressions, I have
changed it to "The AOO Web pages" to avoid confusion. Thanks for pointing
at this.
rgds
jan I.
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> “What is the point of being alive if you don't
> at least try to do something remarkable?”
> -- John Green, "An Abundance of Katherines"
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 03/30/2015 02:52 PM, Marcus wrote:
> Am 03/30/2015 11:41 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>
>> On 03/30/2015 09:36 AM, jan i wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Time for my first AOO Board report.
>>>
>>> I have prepared the board report see
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+Mar
>>>
>>> You might notice that I prefer to use a much more direct tone, than
>>> Andrea
>>> did. That is NOT to say that Andrea did something wrong. You might also
>>> notice the layout is different, it is to make it fit the new reporter
>>> tool,
>>> which I wrote about earlier.
>>>
>>> I believe we are approaching a situation where we need board
>>> involvement,
>>> and therefore I prefer to show board to facts, so they are more prepared
>>> when/if we decide to ask for more.
>>>
>>> Please also be aware that the fact that we in reality have done nothing
>>> with Digital Signing and the MAC boxes, are things that partly will fall
>>> back on Infra (they spent quite a USD amount on us last year for these
>>> items) and therefore influence future requests from us.
>>>
>>> My intention is to commit the board report to the agenda April 5 (end of
>>> this week). Clearly if we have discussions that needs to be settled
>>> before
>>> committing the final report.
>>>
>>> The report is in Wiki, so all with access can change it, please change
>>> typos etc directly, but let us discuss changes in the tone/meaning.
>>>
>>> Rgds
>>> jan I
>>
>> Jan -- I think this report is fine as it stands. But I don't understand
>> this sentence
>>
>> "The HP depend on the features of CMS."
>>
>> under "Issues". What is HP?
>>
>> Other than that...OK.
>
> that means homepage. ;-)
>
> Marcus
Thank you!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
“What is the point of being alive if you don't
at least try to do something remarkable?”
-- John Green, "An Abundance of Katherines"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Marcus <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 03/30/2015 11:41 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>
> On 03/30/2015 09:36 AM, jan i wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> Time for my first AOO Board report.
>>
>> I have prepared the board report see
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+Mar
>>
>> You might notice that I prefer to use a much more direct tone, than Andrea
>> did. That is NOT to say that Andrea did something wrong. You might also
>> notice the layout is different, it is to make it fit the new reporter tool,
>> which I wrote about earlier.
>>
>> I believe we are approaching a situation where we need board involvement,
>> and therefore I prefer to show board to facts, so they are more prepared
>> when/if we decide to ask for more.
>>
>> Please also be aware that the fact that we in reality have done nothing
>> with Digital Signing and the MAC boxes, are things that partly will fall
>> back on Infra (they spent quite a USD amount on us last year for these
>> items) and therefore influence future requests from us.
>>
>> My intention is to commit the board report to the agenda April 5 (end of
>> this week). Clearly if we have discussions that needs to be settled before
>> committing the final report.
>>
>> The report is in Wiki, so all with access can change it, please change
>> typos etc directly, but let us discuss changes in the tone/meaning.
>>
>> Rgds
>> jan I
>
> Jan -- I think this report is fine as it stands. But I don't understand
> this sentence
>
> "The HP depend on the features of CMS."
>
> under "Issues". What is HP?
>
> Other than that...OK.
that means homepage. ;-)
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Board report proposal, please comment before April 5.
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 03/30/2015 09:36 AM, jan i wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Time for my first AOO Board report.
>
> I have prepared the board report see
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+Mar
>
> You might notice that I prefer to use a much more direct tone, than Andrea
> did. That is NOT to say that Andrea did something wrong. You might also
> notice the layout is different, it is to make it fit the new reporter tool,
> which I wrote about earlier.
>
> I believe we are approaching a situation where we need board involvement,
> and therefore I prefer to show board to facts, so they are more prepared
> when/if we decide to ask for more.
>
> Please also be aware that the fact that we in reality have done nothing
> with Digital Signing and the MAC boxes, are things that partly will fall
> back on Infra (they spent quite a USD amount on us last year for these
> items) and therefore influence future requests from us.
>
> My intention is to commit the board report to the agenda April 5 (end of
> this week). Clearly if we have discussions that needs to be settled before
> committing the final report.
>
> The report is in Wiki, so all with access can change it, please change
> typos etc directly, but let us discuss changes in the tone/meaning.
>
> Rgds
> jan I
Jan -- I think this report is fine as it stands. But I don't understand
this sentence
"The HP depend on the features of CMS."
under "Issues". What is HP?
Other than that...OK.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
“What is the point of being alive if you don't
at least try to do something remarkable?”
-- John Green, "An Abundance of Katherines"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org