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 2011/10/11 20:55:51 UTC
RE: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
The Draft Proposal for governance and operation of the OpenOffice.org Forums
within the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling is available on the Apache OO.o
Community Wiki at
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project>.
The Draft Proposal is the work of the OpenOffice.org Forums operators, with
consultation of Apache contributors.
It is proposed to discuss this proposal for at least 6 days starting now,
Tuesday 2011-10-11, and ending at midnight Monday, 2011-10-17T24:00Z.
Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
discussion can stop. If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the Apache
OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its provisions for
governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o Podling.
GUIDELINES
The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
Forums operators. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.
Instead, discuss suggestions and modifications on this list and await any
changes to be made as the OpenOffice.org Forum operators choose to offer
improvements in response to the discussion, including based on ooo-dev
suggestions of their own.
When it is concluded that the Draft Proposal is in a final condition suitable
for ratification, the OpenOffice.org Forum operators will notify us of their
readiness (repeatedly if there is still ongoing discussion and improvement).
- Dennis
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2011/10/11 Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> The proposal looks pretty good to me. Well thought out.
>
> I do have an operational question about the three people given the role of
> "Initial Committers / PMC"
>
> Do Zoltan, Rory, and Ricardo each have the skills and time to necessary to
> both complete the migration of the Fora that was begun by TerryE and then
> maintain the service? Are they all able to be "SysAdmins." My concern is if
> there is only one person in the full "SysAdmin" role we will have a support
> problem.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Speaking for myself... no, I do not have the skills to do the migration. My
role as "admin" do not include the "code part": I'm able to create
sub-forums, modify accounts (a very, very rare activity only needed for
example when someone put spam on the signature)...
Regards
Ricardo
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 13:13 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
> The proposal looks pretty good to me. Well thought out.
>
> I do have an operational question about the three people given the role of "Initial Committers / PMC"
>
> Do Zoltan, Rory, and Ricardo each have the skills and time to necessary to both complete the migration of the Fora that was begun by TerryE and then maintain the service? Are they all able to be "SysAdmins." My concern is if there is only one person in the full "SysAdmin" role we will have a support problem.
>
Hi Dave,
hmm - I think that needs a little clarification.
The proposal section is what is being discussed right now - that
proposal was constructed by the folks that work the forums along with
some helpful input form Dennis, Christian and others.
The inital committers / PMC section was really a left over on that page
and doesn't signify who would handle the site admin - at least not to my
knowledge
(I just add in here, I made a choice to not be part of drafting the
proposal, but I doubt I missed reading any of the discussion, and I was
and am quite happy with what was put together by the group)
So - as for initial comitters/PPMC members section of the page, the list
was just an early list of those with admin/moderator status on the
forums that where _already_ had commit status or PPMC members and is
short at that and just off the top of my head would include:
Kazunari Hirano
Alexandro Colorado
Drew Jensen
I think I'm missing some folks there...darnit, my apologies.
Now the question of site admin - that is a bit tougher - right now that
is me... Terry, I don't know, so I have to assume no, but would love to
be wrong.
So first question is if I could get the migration done - yes, I could
handle that - though I might infuriate the Apache admins doing
it...*smile*...but we will all live through it, I have no doubt.
Going forward it best to have at least 2 individuals - on that all I can
say is that I'm not above begging people to get involved. Of course this
is assuming, or I should say, discounting the Apache admins - so is
this an issue that must be addressed, absolutely. Do I think it can be
fulfilled, I think so and it shouldn't really be all that big a
deal...but you are correct to bring it up, IMO.
Best wishes,
//drew
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by floris v <fl...@gmail.com>.
Op 11-10-2011 23:30, Kazunari Hirano schreef:
> Hi Drew and all,
>
> I sent an email to Vietnamese and Chinese forum admins and asked them
> to read the proposal and say something.
> :)
> But I have not heard from them yet. Have you, Drew?
>
> Thanks,
> khirano
Your chances to hear something from the Vietnamese forum staff are slim
to nonexistent.
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 06:30 +0900, Kazunari Hirano wrote:
> Hi Drew and all,
>
> I sent an email to Vietnamese and Chinese forum admins and asked them
> to read the proposal and say something.
> :)
> But I have not heard from them yet. Have you, Drew?
No - but I'll be doing the following this evening.
1 - putting a copy of the email to the discuss list on ever forum as a
sticky for 5 days
2 - sending emails to each admin/moderators on those forums pointing to
the posting on their forum and to the email thread on the ML. [Even if
you have done so already, I'll still put a copy up as that is what I
promised to do on the site-admin forum]
The VI forum is a real problem, not sure if you have followed along at
all on the Site_admin board on the en forum, but I've been trying to get
in touch with them for days, and no luck, the site has turned into just
a haven for spam...later tonight I will be suspending activity on the
board if no one willing to actively monitor/work the site can be found -
as my Vietnamese is pretty much non-existent.
Any help with the VI forum would be very much appreciated.
//drew
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Drew and all,
I sent an email to Vietnamese and Chinese forum admins and asked them
to read the proposal and say something.
:)
But I have not heard from them yet. Have you, Drew?
Thanks,
khirano
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:13:54 -0700
Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I do have an operational question about the three people given
> the role of "Initial Committers / PMC"
>
> Do Zoltan, Rory, and Ricardo each have the skills and time
I certainly do not have tthe skills to do that, not the time, due
to real life committments over which I have no control.
--
Rory O'Farrell <of...@iol.ie>
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
The proposal looks pretty good to me. Well thought out.
I do have an operational question about the three people given the role of "Initial Committers / PMC"
Do Zoltan, Rory, and Ricardo each have the skills and time to necessary to both complete the migration of the Fora that was begun by TerryE and then maintain the service? Are they all able to be "SysAdmins." My concern is if there is only one person in the full "SysAdmin" role we will have a support problem.
Regards,
Dave
On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>> And yes, the forum people are asking to look at this proposal now and discuss.
>>>
>>
>> OK. That's what I wanted to hear. We've had false starts on this
>> before. I expected the forum proposal to come from a forum admin or
>> moderator, not fro Dennis. But that's fine.
>
> I can confirm that this document has been written by the forum
> members. Even the text of this email has been discussed.
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
>>
>>> This is the outcome of many hours, much sweat and many people
>>> speaking. Thanks to the forum folks for all the work and the patience
>>> with their "observers" :-)
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Christian
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
>>>>> discussion can stop. If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
>>>>> acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
>>>>> separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
>>>>> Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the Apache
>>>>> OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its provisions for
>>>>> governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o Podling.
>>>>>
>>>>> GUIDELINES
>>>>>
>>>>> The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
>>>>> Forums operators. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead, discuss suggestions and modifications on this list and await any
>>>>> changes to be made as the OpenOffice.org Forum operators choose to offer
>>>>> improvements in response to the discussion, including based on ooo-dev
>>>>> suggestions of their own.
>>>>>
>>>>> When it is concluded that the Draft Proposal is in a final condition suitable
>>>>> for ratification, the OpenOffice.org Forum operators will notify us of their
>>>>> readiness (repeatedly if there is still ongoing discussion and improvement).
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dennis
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
>> And yes, the forum people are asking to look at this proposal now and discuss.
>>
>
> OK. That's what I wanted to hear. We've had false starts on this
> before. I expected the forum proposal to come from a forum admin or
> moderator, not fro Dennis. But that's fine.
I can confirm that this document has been written by the forum
members. Even the text of this email has been discussed.
Cheers
Christian
>
>> This is the outcome of many hours, much sweat and many people
>> speaking. Thanks to the forum folks for all the work and the patience
>> with their "observers" :-)
>>
>> Cheers
>> Christian
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
>>>> discussion can stop. If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
>>>> acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
>>>> separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
>>>> Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the Apache
>>>> OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its provisions for
>>>> governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o Podling.
>>>>
>>>> GUIDELINES
>>>>
>>>> The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
>>>> Forums operators. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.
>>>>
>>>> Instead, discuss suggestions and modifications on this list and await any
>>>> changes to be made as the OpenOffice.org Forum operators choose to offer
>>>> improvements in response to the discussion, including based on ooo-dev
>>>> suggestions of their own.
>>>>
>>>> When it is concluded that the Draft Proposal is in a final condition suitable
>>>> for ratification, the OpenOffice.org Forum operators will notify us of their
>>>> readiness (repeatedly if there is still ongoing discussion and improvement).
>>>>
>>>> - Dennis
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Christian Grobmeier
<gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> The Draft Proposal for governance and operation of the OpenOffice.org Forums
>>> within the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling is available on the Apache OO.o
>>> Community Wiki at
>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project>.
>>>
>>> The Draft Proposal is the work of the OpenOffice.org Forums operators, with
>>> consultation of Apache contributors.
>>>
>>> It is proposed to discuss this proposal for at least 6 days starting now,
>>> Tuesday 2011-10-11, and ending at midnight Monday, 2011-10-17T24:00Z.
>>>
>>
>> "It is proposed" ??? Could you be more explicit? Your passive voice
>> is obscuring things. Are the forum people asking for these proposal
>> to be reviewed now?
>
> Please read the proposal and discuss from now until the mentioned
> date. The discuss period will be extended when necessary. It is always
> good to have some kind of a deadline. If the period does not need
> extension there will be a vote on that date (see paragraph below).
>
> And yes, the forum people are asking to look at this proposal now and discuss.
>
OK. That's what I wanted to hear. We've had false starts on this
before. I expected the forum proposal to come from a forum admin or
moderator, not fro Dennis. But that's fine.
> This is the outcome of many hours, much sweat and many people
> speaking. Thanks to the forum folks for all the work and the patience
> with their "observers" :-)
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
>
>>
>>> Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
>>> discussion can stop. If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
>>> acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
>>> separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
>>> Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the Apache
>>> OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its provisions for
>>> governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o Podling.
>>>
>>> GUIDELINES
>>>
>>> The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
>>> Forums operators. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.
>>>
>>> Instead, discuss suggestions and modifications on this list and await any
>>> changes to be made as the OpenOffice.org Forum operators choose to offer
>>> improvements in response to the discussion, including based on ooo-dev
>>> suggestions of their own.
>>>
>>> When it is concluded that the Draft Proposal is in a final condition suitable
>>> for ratification, the OpenOffice.org Forum operators will notify us of their
>>> readiness (repeatedly if there is still ongoing discussion and improvement).
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>> The Draft Proposal for governance and operation of the OpenOffice.org Forums
>> within the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling is available on the Apache OO.o
>> Community Wiki at
>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project>.
>>
>> The Draft Proposal is the work of the OpenOffice.org Forums operators, with
>> consultation of Apache contributors.
>>
>> It is proposed to discuss this proposal for at least 6 days starting now,
>> Tuesday 2011-10-11, and ending at midnight Monday, 2011-10-17T24:00Z.
>>
>
> "It is proposed" ??? Could you be more explicit? Your passive voice
> is obscuring things. Are the forum people asking for these proposal
> to be reviewed now?
Please read the proposal and discuss from now until the mentioned
date. The discuss period will be extended when necessary. It is always
good to have some kind of a deadline. If the period does not need
extension there will be a vote on that date (see paragraph below).
And yes, the forum people are asking to look at this proposal now and discuss.
This is the outcome of many hours, much sweat and many people
speaking. Thanks to the forum folks for all the work and the patience
with their "observers" :-)
Cheers
Christian
>
>> Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
>> discussion can stop. If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
>> acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
>> separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
>> Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the Apache
>> OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its provisions for
>> governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o Podling.
>>
>> GUIDELINES
>>
>> The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
>> Forums operators. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.
>>
>> Instead, discuss suggestions and modifications on this list and await any
>> changes to be made as the OpenOffice.org Forum operators choose to offer
>> improvements in response to the discussion, including based on ooo-dev
>> suggestions of their own.
>>
>> When it is concluded that the Draft Proposal is in a final condition suitable
>> for ratification, the OpenOffice.org Forum operators will notify us of their
>> readiness (repeatedly if there is still ongoing discussion and improvement).
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> The Draft Proposal for governance and operation of the OpenOffice.org Forums
> within the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling is available on the Apache OO.o
> Community Wiki at
> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project>.
>
> The Draft Proposal is the work of the OpenOffice.org Forums operators, with
> consultation of Apache contributors.
>
> It is proposed to discuss this proposal for at least 6 days starting now,
> Tuesday 2011-10-11, and ending at midnight Monday, 2011-10-17T24:00Z.
>
"It is proposed" ??? Could you be more explicit? Your passive voice
is obscuring things. Are the forum people asking for these proposal
to be reviewed now?
> Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
> discussion can stop. If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
> acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
> separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
> Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the Apache
> OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its provisions for
> governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o Podling.
>
> GUIDELINES
>
> The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
> Forums operators. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.
>
> Instead, discuss suggestions and modifications on this list and await any
> changes to be made as the OpenOffice.org Forum operators choose to offer
> improvements in response to the discussion, including based on ooo-dev
> suggestions of their own.
>
> When it is concluded that the Draft Proposal is in a final condition suitable
> for ratification, the OpenOffice.org Forum operators will notify us of their
> readiness (repeatedly if there is still ongoing discussion and improvement).
>
> - Dennis
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
>>> The Apache Way is like Zen. There are some rules and plenty of
>>> guidelines,
>>> but it's really about having a healthy community that listens to each
>>> other
>>> and works towards consensus.
>>>
>>
>> Shane, it should be obvious to a stone that I am advocating the Zen
>> approach of just taking the lazy consensus and moving forward to it.
Please let us not discuss Zen now.
> Personally, I'd love to see a [VOTE] thread on the forum migration issue if
> for nothing else than to show the forum volunteers the amount of support
> they have here. I get the impression that they think "we" really don't like
> them, and I have to say that a significant number of them have mentioned the
> style of your participation in the forum threads as the specific reason for
> that. Personally, I think the social and community aspect of this migration
> is far more important than procedural issues.
+1
But we are just mentors.
We have no cared long time on the forum. It is time that the ooo-dev
takes the lead and shows them a signal that the project is ready to
adopt them. Be it with a vote or a nice message. After all it is the
ooo-dev win or loss on this.
I think the time has come that somebody of the ooo-dev takes the lead
and brings the forum to the project.
If this has been agreed with a lazy consens, then the project should
start a vote to bring the new PMC people.
Whatever. The forum people has been asked to bring in at proposal.
They did. Now it is time to say in clear words: yes, guys, please
join.
So ooo-dev, please fight for your forum yourself now.
>
> - Shane, realizing he also hasn't had breakfast yet, which could explain
> some things.
>
>> Now is the time for the forum admins, moderators and volunteers to
>> decide if they want to go forward, based on the lazy consensus
>> received. Or whether they want to tie this up in another week of
>> procedural wrangling. And for what purpose?. Personally I'd
>> recommend that they JFDI.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Also, I really question if a significant percentage of the rest of the
>>> PPMC
>>> has a similar shared understanding to this view in terms of how rigid you
>>> seem to see policies everywhere. Given that the podling is only a few
>>> months old, and it's made up of primarily new committers, I expect any
>>> "rules" here to be changed a few times before graduation.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, we should be voting on things in only two situations:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Where the Apache process requires it, e.g., releases, new committers,
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>> And please note Christian's comment:
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally we are adding people to the PMC
>>>>> with this vote too!
>>>
>>> Really? Who - specifically - are we adding to the PMC? Does everyone on
>>> this thread really have the same understanding of what this proposal
>>> does?
>>>
>>> PMC or committer additions are one of the things that do require a vote,
>>> and
>>> that's a rule you can't break. It should also be a separate vote for
>>> each
>>> individual being added.
>>>
>>> - Shane
>>>
>>>> 2) Where prolonged discussion and good faith efforts have failed to
>>>> reach a consensus and we're forced to have a vote to choose from
>>>> alternatives
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we should allow a proposer to self-select a decision
>>>> making method (a vote) that requires a lesser degree of consensus. If
>>>> we allowed this, then wouldn't we decide every question via a vote?
>>>> What proposer would not prefer to have the lesser requirement of 51%
>>>> approval rather than risk a veto when calling for lazy consensus?
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 10/18/2011 8:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Shane Curcuru<as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>> Sigh.
>>
>> On 10/18/2011 7:45 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:21 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>>> <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, floris v<fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Op 18-10-2011 9:58, Ross Gardler schreef:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apache projects are about avoiding "ceremonial acts"and all about
>>>>>> getting
>>>>>> stiff done.
>>>>>
>>>>> A vote may be purely ceremonial, but it would kind of make clear how
>>>>> many
>>>>> people actually care enough for (or against? - dubious English, but you
>>>>> get
>>>>> the point) the project to vote.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if it is because of my limited english skills, but are we
>>>> really discussing to leave out the vote?
>>>>
>>>> The discussion around the forums was very hot. I don't think this is
>>>> pure ceremony to have a vote. Finally we are adding people to the PMC
>>>> with this vote too!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Think of it this way: With Lazy Consensus, any single committer can
>>> veto a proposal. With a vote, all you need to approve is that 51% of
>>> voters approve. So Lazy Consensus is harder to reach. It is the
>>> stricter requirement.
>>>
>>> So if you already have consensus (lack of objections) then why have a
>>> redundant vote?
>>
>> There's another side to this: if sufficient people want to have a vote - for
>> whatever reasons, be it clearing their conscience or whatever - then I
>> recommend that they JFDI.
>>
>> A key issue for communities is to let the whole community work together.
>> When part of the community wants to do something new, even if someone
>> thinks it's a dumb idea, as long as the idea isn't harmful, then why are you
>> standing in the way?
>>
>> With code, it's fairly simple; we can measure conformance tests or
>> performance numbers. With social issues it is indeed harder to judge. But
>> if that many other people want to hold a vote, then I say let them.
>>
>>> I'm also concerned about this on policy grounds. What precedent does
>>> this set? For example, if at some future time, if I have a proposal
>>> to make, and I think it may have some opposition, may I request that
>>> it be voted on (approved by 51%) rather than go through lazy consensus
>>> (lack of veto)? Doesn't think encroach on the rights of the committer
>>> to veto a proposal?
>>
>> I think you are approaching this whole project from a perspective faaaaaar
>> too rooted in detail oriented, formal policy, standards setting background.
>> Just because the PPMC holds a vote on this issue does not set a policy in
>> stone that votes must always be held on every issue (or on any kind of
>> issue). It just
>>
>> The Apache Way is like Zen. There are some rules and plenty of guidelines,
>> but it's really about having a healthy community that listens to each other
>> and works towards consensus.
>>
>
> Shane, it should be obvious to a stone that I am advocating the Zen
> approach of just taking the lazy consensus and moving forward to it.
> Your uncalled for personal attacks denigrating my standards experience
> does not change this. Remember, Dennis also has a background in
> standards (he's on a committee that I chair) and he, not I, is the
> one pushing for unnecessary greater process around this.
Apologies if my poor choice of words offended, it was not meant to. But
I don't have the brainpower to add anything else to your discussion at
the moment.
Personally, I'd love to see a [VOTE] thread on the forum migration issue
if for nothing else than to show the forum volunteers the amount of
support they have here. I get the impression that they think "we"
really don't like them, and I have to say that a significant number of
them have mentioned the style of your participation in the forum threads
as the specific reason for that. Personally, I think the social and
community aspect of this migration is far more important than procedural
issues.
- Shane, realizing he also hasn't had breakfast yet, which could explain
some things.
> Now is the time for the forum admins, moderators and volunteers to
> decide if they want to go forward, based on the lazy consensus
> received. Or whether they want to tie this up in another week of
> procedural wrangling. And for what purpose?. Personally I'd
> recommend that they JFDI.
>
> -Rob
>
>> Also, I really question if a significant percentage of the rest of the PPMC
>> has a similar shared understanding to this view in terms of how rigid you
>> seem to see policies everywhere. Given that the podling is only a few
>> months old, and it's made up of primarily new committers, I expect any
>> "rules" here to be changed a few times before graduation.
>>
>>>
>>> IMHO, we should be voting on things in only two situations:
>>>
>>> 1) Where the Apache process requires it, e.g., releases, new committers,
>>> etc.
>>
>> And please note Christian's comment:
>>>> Finally we are adding people to the PMC
>>>> with this vote too!
>>
>> Really? Who - specifically - are we adding to the PMC? Does everyone on
>> this thread really have the same understanding of what this proposal does?
>>
>> PMC or committer additions are one of the things that do require a vote, and
>> that's a rule you can't break. It should also be a separate vote for each
>> individual being added.
>>
>> - Shane
>>
>>> 2) Where prolonged discussion and good faith efforts have failed to
>>> reach a consensus and we're forced to have a vote to choose from
>>> alternatives
>>>
>>> I don't think we should allow a proposer to self-select a decision
>>> making method (a vote) that requires a lesser degree of consensus. If
>>> we allowed this, then wouldn't we decide every question via a vote?
>>> What proposer would not prefer to have the lesser requirement of 51%
>>> approval rather than risk a veto when calling for lazy consensus?
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> Sigh.
>
> On 10/18/2011 7:45 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:21 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>> <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, floris v<fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Op 18-10-2011 9:58, Ross Gardler schreef:
>>>>>
>>>>> Apache projects are about avoiding "ceremonial acts"and all about
>>>>> getting
>>>>> stiff done.
>>>>
>>>> A vote may be purely ceremonial, but it would kind of make clear how
>>>> many
>>>> people actually care enough for (or against? - dubious English, but you
>>>> get
>>>> the point) the project to vote.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Not sure if it is because of my limited english skills, but are we
>>> really discussing to leave out the vote?
>>>
>>> The discussion around the forums was very hot. I don't think this is
>>> pure ceremony to have a vote. Finally we are adding people to the PMC
>>> with this vote too!
>>>
>>
>> Think of it this way: With Lazy Consensus, any single committer can
>> veto a proposal. With a vote, all you need to approve is that 51% of
>> voters approve. So Lazy Consensus is harder to reach. It is the
>> stricter requirement.
>>
>> So if you already have consensus (lack of objections) then why have a
>> redundant vote?
>
> There's another side to this: if sufficient people want to have a vote - for
> whatever reasons, be it clearing their conscience or whatever - then I
> recommend that they JFDI.
>
> A key issue for communities is to let the whole community work together.
> When part of the community wants to do something new, even if someone
> thinks it's a dumb idea, as long as the idea isn't harmful, then why are you
> standing in the way?
>
> With code, it's fairly simple; we can measure conformance tests or
> performance numbers. With social issues it is indeed harder to judge. But
> if that many other people want to hold a vote, then I say let them.
>
>> I'm also concerned about this on policy grounds. What precedent does
>> this set? For example, if at some future time, if I have a proposal
>> to make, and I think it may have some opposition, may I request that
>> it be voted on (approved by 51%) rather than go through lazy consensus
>> (lack of veto)? Doesn't think encroach on the rights of the committer
>> to veto a proposal?
>
> I think you are approaching this whole project from a perspective faaaaaar
> too rooted in detail oriented, formal policy, standards setting background.
> Just because the PPMC holds a vote on this issue does not set a policy in
> stone that votes must always be held on every issue (or on any kind of
> issue). It just
>
> The Apache Way is like Zen. There are some rules and plenty of guidelines,
> but it's really about having a healthy community that listens to each other
> and works towards consensus.
>
Shane, it should be obvious to a stone that I am advocating the Zen
approach of just taking the lazy consensus and moving forward to it.
Your uncalled for personal attacks denigrating my standards experience
does not change this. Remember, Dennis also has a background in
standards (he's on a committee that I chair) and he, not I, is the
one pushing for unnecessary greater process around this.
Now is the time for the forum admins, moderators and volunteers to
decide if they want to go forward, based on the lazy consensus
received. Or whether they want to tie this up in another week of
procedural wrangling. And for what purpose?. Personally I'd
recommend that they JFDI.
-Rob
> Also, I really question if a significant percentage of the rest of the PPMC
> has a similar shared understanding to this view in terms of how rigid you
> seem to see policies everywhere. Given that the podling is only a few
> months old, and it's made up of primarily new committers, I expect any
> "rules" here to be changed a few times before graduation.
>
>>
>> IMHO, we should be voting on things in only two situations:
>>
>> 1) Where the Apache process requires it, e.g., releases, new committers,
>> etc.
>
> And please note Christian's comment:
>>> Finally we are adding people to the PMC
>>> with this vote too!
>
> Really? Who - specifically - are we adding to the PMC? Does everyone on
> this thread really have the same understanding of what this proposal does?
>
> PMC or committer additions are one of the things that do require a vote, and
> that's a rule you can't break. It should also be a separate vote for each
> individual being added.
>
> - Shane
>
>> 2) Where prolonged discussion and good faith efforts have failed to
>> reach a consensus and we're forced to have a vote to choose from
>> alternatives
>>
>> I don't think we should allow a proposer to self-select a decision
>> making method (a vote) that requires a lesser degree of consensus. If
>> we allowed this, then wouldn't we decide every question via a vote?
>> What proposer would not prefer to have the lesser requirement of 51%
>> approval rather than risk a veto when calling for lazy consensus?
>>
>> -Rob
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Please add here the names of the current admins/moderators/volunteers
>> who want to join the PMC
>>
>> Zoltan Reizinger - r4zoli, Hungarian Forum admin, already PPMC member
>> Rory O'Farrell - RoryOF - ofarrwrk at iol.ie
>> Ricardo Gabriel Berlasso - RGB-es on the Spanish forums (Admin) - rgb
>> dot mldc at gmail dot com
>>
>> To my understanding these two persons not on the PMC want to join.
>
> Don't we need to have a discussion and vote on ooo-private about these two?
Yes.
This actually should happened when the proposal was suggested. At
least the discussion on it.
> It would be separate from a vote on the whole proposal which would occur on ooo-dev.
This is fine. But one should know that the forum will probably not
migrate to ooo when the forum folks cannot join the pmc.
Cheers,
Christain
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> From the discussions on the forum I have learned two things:
>>
>> - the forum people want to make sure they are welcome (which might be
>> expressed with voting them in)
>> - the forum people don't want to give away their management powers on
>> it. Therefore we all have discussed they will join the PMC.
>>
>> I hope it is clear to everybody on the OOo PMC that this will going to
>> happen, b/c there were no objections on it so far.
>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Sorry for the snips, but this should not be overlooked in our "don't think of a monkey" discussion.
On Oct 18, 2011, at 5:44 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Just to make my understanding clear:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project
>
> Proposal #C: Forum Admin must become committers.
>
> Later in intial committers:
>
>
> Please add here the names of the current admins/moderators/volunteers
> who want to join the PMC
>
> Zoltan Reizinger - r4zoli, Hungarian Forum admin, already PPMC member
> Rory O'Farrell - RoryOF - ofarrwrk at iol.ie
> Ricardo Gabriel Berlasso - RGB-es on the Spanish forums (Admin) - rgb
> dot mldc at gmail dot com
>
> To my understanding these two persons not on the PMC want to join.
Don't we need to have a discussion and vote on ooo-private about these two?
It would be separate from a vote on the whole proposal which would occur on ooo-dev.
Regards,
Dave
>
> From the discussions on the forum I have learned two things:
>
> - the forum people want to make sure they are welcome (which might be
> expressed with voting them in)
> - the forum people don't want to give away their management powers on
> it. Therefore we all have discussed they will join the PMC.
>
> I hope it is clear to everybody on the OOo PMC that this will going to
> happen, b/c there were no objections on it so far.
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
> And please note Christian's comment:
>>> Finally we are adding people to the PMC
>>> with this vote too!
>
> Really? Who - specifically - are we adding to the PMC? Does everyone on
> this thread really have the same understanding of what this proposal does?
>
> PMC or committer additions are one of the things that do require a vote, and
> that's a rule you can't break. It should also be a separate vote for each
> individual being added.
Right, we can make individual notes. Not sure if this is clear to other people.
When we vote a new incubator project in, initial committers are
joining the ASF without voting on them as individuals. Thats why I
wrote it.
Just to make my understanding clear:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project
Proposal #C: Forum Admin must become committers.
Later in intial committers:
Please add here the names of the current admins/moderators/volunteers
who want to join the PMC
Zoltan Reizinger - r4zoli, Hungarian Forum admin, already PPMC member
Rory O'Farrell - RoryOF - ofarrwrk at iol.ie
Ricardo Gabriel Berlasso - RGB-es on the Spanish forums (Admin) - rgb
dot mldc at gmail dot com
To my understanding these two persons not on the PMC want to join.
>From the discussions on the forum I have learned two things:
- the forum people want to make sure they are welcome (which might be
expressed with voting them in)
- the forum people don't want to give away their management powers on
it. Therefore we all have discussed they will join the PMC.
I hope it is clear to everybody on the OOo PMC that this will going to
happen, b/c there were no objections on it so far.
Cheers,
Christian
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
Sigh.
On 10/18/2011 7:45 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:21 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, floris v<fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Op 18-10-2011 9:58, Ross Gardler schreef:
>>>> Apache projects are about avoiding "ceremonial acts"and all about getting
>>>> stiff done.
>>>
>>> A vote may be purely ceremonial, but it would kind of make clear how many
>>> people actually care enough for (or against? - dubious English, but you get
>>> the point) the project to vote.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Not sure if it is because of my limited english skills, but are we
>> really discussing to leave out the vote?
>>
>> The discussion around the forums was very hot. I don't think this is
>> pure ceremony to have a vote. Finally we are adding people to the PMC
>> with this vote too!
>>
>
> Think of it this way: With Lazy Consensus, any single committer can
> veto a proposal. With a vote, all you need to approve is that 51% of
> voters approve. So Lazy Consensus is harder to reach. It is the
> stricter requirement.
>
> So if you already have consensus (lack of objections) then why have a
> redundant vote?
There's another side to this: if sufficient people want to have a vote -
for whatever reasons, be it clearing their conscience or whatever - then
I recommend that they JFDI.
A key issue for communities is to let the whole community work together.
When part of the community wants to do something new, even if someone
thinks it's a dumb idea, as long as the idea isn't harmful, then why are
you standing in the way?
With code, it's fairly simple; we can measure conformance tests or
performance numbers. With social issues it is indeed harder to judge.
But if that many other people want to hold a vote, then I say let them.
> I'm also concerned about this on policy grounds. What precedent does
> this set? For example, if at some future time, if I have a proposal
> to make, and I think it may have some opposition, may I request that
> it be voted on (approved by 51%) rather than go through lazy consensus
> (lack of veto)? Doesn't think encroach on the rights of the committer
> to veto a proposal?
I think you are approaching this whole project from a perspective
faaaaaar too rooted in detail oriented, formal policy, standards setting
background. Just because the PPMC holds a vote on this issue does not
set a policy in stone that votes must always be held on every issue (or
on any kind of issue). It just
The Apache Way is like Zen. There are some rules and plenty of
guidelines, but it's really about having a healthy community that
listens to each other and works towards consensus.
Also, I really question if a significant percentage of the rest of the
PPMC has a similar shared understanding to this view in terms of how
rigid you seem to see policies everywhere. Given that the podling is
only a few months old, and it's made up of primarily new committers, I
expect any "rules" here to be changed a few times before graduation.
>
> IMHO, we should be voting on things in only two situations:
>
> 1) Where the Apache process requires it, e.g., releases, new committers, etc.
And please note Christian's comment:
>> Finally we are adding people to the PMC
>> with this vote too!
Really? Who - specifically - are we adding to the PMC? Does everyone
on this thread really have the same understanding of what this proposal
does?
PMC or committer additions are one of the things that do require a vote,
and that's a rule you can't break. It should also be a separate vote
for each individual being added.
- Shane
> 2) Where prolonged discussion and good faith efforts have failed to
> reach a consensus and we're forced to have a vote to choose from
> alternatives
>
> I don't think we should allow a proposer to self-select a decision
> making method (a vote) that requires a lesser degree of consensus. If
> we allowed this, then wouldn't we decide every question via a vote?
> What proposer would not prefer to have the lesser requirement of 51%
> approval rather than risk a veto when calling for lazy consensus?
>
> -Rob
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:21 AM, Christian Grobmeier
<gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, floris v <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Op 18-10-2011 9:58, Ross Gardler schreef:
>>> Apache projects are about avoiding "ceremonial acts"and all about getting
>>> stiff done.
>>
>> A vote may be purely ceremonial, but it would kind of make clear how many
>> people actually care enough for (or against? - dubious English, but you get
>> the point) the project to vote.
>
> +1
>
> Not sure if it is because of my limited english skills, but are we
> really discussing to leave out the vote?
>
> The discussion around the forums was very hot. I don't think this is
> pure ceremony to have a vote. Finally we are adding people to the PMC
> with this vote too!
>
Think of it this way: With Lazy Consensus, any single committer can
veto a proposal. With a vote, all you need to approve is that 51% of
voters approve. So Lazy Consensus is harder to reach. It is the
stricter requirement.
So if you already have consensus (lack of objections) then why have a
redundant vote?
I'm also concerned about this on policy grounds. What precedent does
this set? For example, if at some future time, if I have a proposal
to make, and I think it may have some opposition, may I request that
it be voted on (approved by 51%) rather than go through lazy consensus
(lack of veto)? Doesn't think encroach on the rights of the committer
to veto a proposal?
IMHO, we should be voting on things in only two situations:
1) Where the Apache process requires it, e.g., releases, new committers, etc.
2) Where prolonged discussion and good faith efforts have failed to
reach a consensus and we're forced to have a vote to choose from
alternatives
I don't think we should allow a proposer to self-select a decision
making method (a vote) that requires a lesser degree of consensus. If
we allowed this, then wouldn't we decide every question via a vote?
What proposer would not prefer to have the lesser requirement of 51%
approval rather than risk a veto when calling for lazy consensus?
-Rob
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, floris v <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Op 18-10-2011 9:58, Ross Gardler schreef:
>> Apache projects are about avoiding "ceremonial acts"and all about getting
>> stiff done.
>
> A vote may be purely ceremonial, but it would kind of make clear how many
> people actually care enough for (or against? - dubious English, but you get
> the point) the project to vote.
+1
Not sure if it is because of my limited english skills, but are we
really discussing to leave out the vote?
The discussion around the forums was very hot. I don't think this is
pure ceremony to have a vote. Finally we are adding people to the PMC
with this vote too!
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by floris v <fl...@gmail.com>.
Op 18-10-2011 10:23, Ross Gardler schreef:
> On 18 October 2011 09:15, floris v<fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> A vote may be purely ceremonial, but it would kind of make clear how many
>> people actually care enough for (or against? - dubious English, but you get
>> the point) the project to vote.
> In principle this is true. People would vote +1 to indicate that they
> intend to help and +0 to indicate they support the idea but won't be
> contributing directly.
>
> In practice though people often vote +1 to indicate support.
>
> If the forum volunteers want to make sure there are enough people
> wanting to support the move with action then a vote with a clear
> "please only vote +1 if you will be active in the forums in some way"
> might be a good idea. Although I would have thought such an activity
> would be best carried out in the forums where the currently active
> volunteers are. I think it is clear the PPMC will gladly host the
> forums and ensure the necessary infrastructure is provided.
>
> However, again I'm not saying *don't* have a vote, just trying to help
> the project understand how best to implement the Apache Way. Whether
> my words are entirely appropriate to this case is for those doing the
> work to decide.
>
> I will observe though that talking about it is wasting even more time ;-)
>
> Ross
>
> Ross
We have been running the forums for nearly four years, without, to my
knowledge, any interference from the host (first Sun, later Oracle). We
have always claimed to be independent (that is: we aren't an extension
of the customer service dept of Sun or Oracle) and claimed that the
developers didn't visit the forums, so that the forums aren't the right
place for filing bug reports or feature requests (of course we would
link to the issue tracker if we could find an associated report, or file
an issue if the reporter finds the task too daunting, and encourage
people to vote for it).
The most important support that we want from the Apache community is the
assurance that the forums are welcome and that Apache is the right place
for them.
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 18 October 2011 09:15, floris v <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> A vote may be purely ceremonial, but it would kind of make clear how many
> people actually care enough for (or against? - dubious English, but you get
> the point) the project to vote.
In principle this is true. People would vote +1 to indicate that they
intend to help and +0 to indicate they support the idea but won't be
contributing directly.
In practice though people often vote +1 to indicate support.
If the forum volunteers want to make sure there are enough people
wanting to support the move with action then a vote with a clear
"please only vote +1 if you will be active in the forums in some way"
might be a good idea. Although I would have thought such an activity
would be best carried out in the forums where the currently active
volunteers are. I think it is clear the PPMC will gladly host the
forums and ensure the necessary infrastructure is provided.
However, again I'm not saying *don't* have a vote, just trying to help
the project understand how best to implement the Apache Way. Whether
my words are entirely appropriate to this case is for those doing the
work to decide.
I will observe though that talking about it is wasting even more time ;-)
Ross
Ross
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by floris v <fl...@gmail.com>.
Op 18-10-2011 9:58, Ross Gardler schreef:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Oct 18, 2011 1:56 AM, "Rob Weir"<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton<or...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>>> The stated [DISCUSS] expiration of midnight, today, 2011-10-17T24:00Z
> has arrived.
>>> The discussion has quieted and there appears to be no objection to
> conducting a [VOTE] ratifying the PPMC acceptance of the proposal, with the
> modest adjustments that were made.
>>> On a different thread, it was observed that, since there is no further
> discussion, and there was no opposition, the proposal should be considered
> ratified, a sort of lazy consensus:
>>> <
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201110.mbox/%3cCAP-ksogkFzGgLB0ALY=vJaP7Q3D2pEFuCc-v1M3+RpOXuO7cDg@mail.gmail.com%3e
>> .
>>> I want to be clear, that this [DISCUSS] was not for voting but to review
> the proposal in preparation for voting. Although it might be assumed that
> there is no objection to the proposal's adoption by the PPMC, that was not
> the question.
> This is fundamental to the process of lazy consensus. If an objection is not
> raised during discussion how can people consider the merit of that
> objection? There should be no discussion in a vote thread, all opinions
> should already have been heard.
>
>>> I am also concerned that the OpenOffice.org Forum operators are being
> denied an important ceremonial act on our part.
> On the contrary. Avoiding the need to vote is the most important part of
> consensus building in an Apache project.
>
> Apache projects are about avoiding "ceremonial acts"and all about getting
> stiff done.
The forum staff also really want to get things done. We also have a kind
of lazy consensus, but there really was very little discussion here, and
that might be due to general agreement as well as a general lack of
interest. After all the user forums are so far an alien element in the
Apache developers community. I can perfectly imagine that most of the
committers think on the line of WTF (many of the questions on the forum
are from people who didn't RTFM, others didn't search the forum, and a
few actually report bugs or ask for features, and some of both have
already been filed years ago), just as something like 90 % of the posts
on the mailing list is totally irrelevant for the average forum
volunteer. We seem to have some 60-90 volunteers (some 60 on the EN
forum, and more on the others who maybe never post on the EN one) and of
those only 35 voted for or against the proposal.
A vote may be purely ceremonial, but it would kind of make clear how
many people actually care enough for (or against? - dubious English, but
you get the point) the project to vote.
>>> Since it would take as long to introduce a lazy consensus, now, as to
> actually conduct the [VOTE], I intend to go ahead with the [VOTE] once I
> come up with an appropriate wording and message. Then it will all be clear,
> won't it?
> If there are no objections and the discussion has run it's course then one
> can assume lazy consensus has already been achieved.
>
> All that being said, this is a new community, calling the odd vote that is
> not necessary will not cause harm. Getting bogged down in endless process
> will, however cause delays and frustration. My post is about the longer
> term.
>
>> Actually, I object to the ceremony of a poorly motivated vote.. There
>> were no objections to the proposal. The forum volunteers should go
>> ahead and implement the proposal.
>>
> +1
>
> If Dennis really feels it is necessary to give a last chance for objection
> (it's good to be inclusive) simply state that we believe consensus has been
> reached. In the meantime, if I were a forum volunteer I'd be making my
> preparations already. The volunteers will be doing the work, the only person
> who can object now is someone implementing an alternative and no such person
> has been seen in all the time discussing.
>
> Ross
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Oct 18, 2011 1:56 AM, "Rob Weir" <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>
wrote:
> > The stated [DISCUSS] expiration of midnight, today, 2011-10-17T24:00Z
has arrived.
> >
> > The discussion has quieted and there appears to be no objection to
conducting a [VOTE] ratifying the PPMC acceptance of the proposal, with the
modest adjustments that were made.
> >
> > On a different thread, it was observed that, since there is no further
discussion, and there was no opposition, the proposal should be considered
ratified, a sort of lazy consensus:
> > <
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201110.mbox/%3cCAP-ksogkFzGgLB0ALY=vJaP7Q3D2pEFuCc-v1M3+RpOXuO7cDg@mail.gmail.com%3e
>.
> >
> > I want to be clear, that this [DISCUSS] was not for voting but to review
the proposal in preparation for voting. Although it might be assumed that
there is no objection to the proposal's adoption by the PPMC, that was not
the question.
> >
This is fundamental to the process of lazy consensus. If an objection is not
raised during discussion how can people consider the merit of that
objection? There should be no discussion in a vote thread, all opinions
should already have been heard.
> > I am also concerned that the OpenOffice.org Forum operators are being
denied an important ceremonial act on our part.
> >
On the contrary. Avoiding the need to vote is the most important part of
consensus building in an Apache project.
Apache projects are about avoiding "ceremonial acts"and all about getting
stiff done.
> > Since it would take as long to introduce a lazy consensus, now, as to
actually conduct the [VOTE], I intend to go ahead with the [VOTE] once I
come up with an appropriate wording and message. Then it will all be clear,
won't it?
> >
If there are no objections and the discussion has run it's course then one
can assume lazy consensus has already been achieved.
All that being said, this is a new community, calling the odd vote that is
not necessary will not cause harm. Getting bogged down in endless process
will, however cause delays and frustration. My post is about the longer
term.
>
> Actually, I object to the ceremony of a poorly motivated vote.. There
> were no objections to the proposal. The forum volunteers should go
> ahead and implement the proposal.
>
+1
If Dennis really feels it is necessary to give a last chance for objection
(it's good to be inclusive) simply state that we believe consensus has been
reached. In the meantime, if I were a forum volunteer I'd be making my
preparations already. The volunteers will be doing the work, the only person
who can object now is someone implementing an alternative and no such person
has been seen in all the time discussing.
Ross
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> So, shall it simply be concluded that the proposal in its current form has been accepted without objection?
>
I could not read about any objections which have not been resolved so far.
If you ask me, it is time for binding votes on the forum and on ooo-dev list.
Cheers
Christian
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 17:57
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>> The stated [DISCUSS] expiration of midnight, today, 2011-10-17T24:00Z has arrived.
>>
>> The discussion has quieted and there appears to be no objection to conducting a [VOTE] ratifying the PPMC acceptance of the proposal, with the modest adjustments that were made.
>>
>> On a different thread, it was observed that, since there is no further discussion, and there was no opposition, the proposal should be considered ratified, a sort of lazy consensus:
>> <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201110.mbox/%3cCAP-ksogkFzGgLB0ALY=vJaP7Q3D2pEFuCc-v1M3+RpOXuO7cDg@mail.gmail.com%3e>.
>>
>> I want to be clear, that this [DISCUSS] was not for voting but to review the proposal in preparation for voting. Although it might be assumed that there is no objection to the proposal's adoption by the PPMC, that was not the question.
>>
>> I am also concerned that the OpenOffice.org Forum operators are being denied an important ceremonial act on our part.
>>
>> Since it would take as long to introduce a lazy consensus, now, as to actually conduct the [VOTE], I intend to go ahead with the [VOTE] once I come up with an appropriate wording and message. Then it will all be clear, won't it?
>>
>
> Actually, I object to the ceremony of a poorly motivated vote.. There
> were no objections to the proposal. The forum volunteers should go
> ahead and implement the proposal.
>
> Your use of the term "ratify" is meaningless since there is no such
> thing at Apache. Your introductory note also talked about "the
> commitment of the Apache OO.o Podling to implementation of the
> proposal...". This is also meaningless. I commit to nothing. Those
> who volunteer to do the work are the ones who do the work. The
> proposal didn't ask the PPMC to do anything.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:grobmeier@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 00:09
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
>>
>> 2011/10/13 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>:
>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Wondering why the discussion is on the wiki as comments?
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>
>> There was discussion on this list, onn the forum, on the wiki and then
>> back on the forum. These wiki comments are meanwhile outdated, you can
>> basically ignore them, except you have an "historical interest". But
>> then you should also read the forums.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
>>>> discussion can stop. If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
>>>> acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
>>>> separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
>>>> Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the
>>>> Apache
>>>> OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its provisions
>>>> for
>>>> governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o Podling.
>>>>
>>>> GUIDELINES
>>>>
>>>> The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
>>>> Forums operators. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.
>>>>
>>>> Instead, discuss suggestions and modifications on this list and await any
>>>> changes to be made as the OpenOffice.org Forum operators choose to offer
>>>> improvements in response to the discussion, including based on ooo-dev
>>>> suggestions of their own.
>>>>
>>>> When it is concluded that the Draft Proposal is in a final condition
>>>> suitable
>>>> for ratification, the OpenOffice.org Forum operators will notify us of
>>>> their
>>>> readiness (repeatedly if there is still ongoing discussion and
>>>> improvement).
>>>>
>>>> - Dennis
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>
>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dennis and all,
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> I have no idea what is going on, but I shall commence the [VOTE] when I have my first morning cup of coffee in front of me.
Good! :) Good to hear this before I am going to futon.
I will vote tomorrow morning Japan Time after my first morning cup of
coffee, Kilimanjaro :)
Thanks,
Good night,
khirano
RE: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Yesterday, I asked the question below. It is obvious from the fact that (1) this message has not been responded to at all, and (2) the discussion that is now raging, that I cannot assume that the proposal is accepted, despite any proclamations that there is a lazy consensus. Some silence is apparently not consent.
I have no idea what is going on, but I shall commence the [VOTE] when I have my first morning cup of coffee in front of me.
On everything else, No Comment.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 20:22
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
So, shall it simply be concluded that the proposal in its current form has been accepted without objection?
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 17:57
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> The stated [DISCUSS] expiration of midnight, today, 2011-10-17T24:00Z has arrived.
>
> The discussion has quieted and there appears to be no objection to conducting a [VOTE] ratifying the PPMC acceptance of the proposal, with the modest adjustments that were made.
>
> On a different thread, it was observed that, since there is no further discussion, and there was no opposition, the proposal should be considered ratified, a sort of lazy consensus:
> <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201110.mbox/%3cCAP-ksogkFzGgLB0ALY=vJaP7Q3D2pEFuCc-v1M3+RpOXuO7cDg@mail.gmail.com%3e>.
>
> I want to be clear, that this [DISCUSS] was not for voting but to review the proposal in preparation for voting. Although it might be assumed that there is no objection to the proposal's adoption by the PPMC, that was not the question.
>
> I am also concerned that the OpenOffice.org Forum operators are being denied an important ceremonial act on our part.
>
> Since it would take as long to introduce a lazy consensus, now, as to actually conduct the [VOTE], I intend to go ahead with the [VOTE] once I come up with an appropriate wording and message. Then it will all be clear, won't it?
>
Actually, I object to the ceremony of a poorly motivated vote.. There
were no objections to the proposal. The forum volunteers should go
ahead and implement the proposal.
Your use of the term "ratify" is meaningless since there is no such
thing at Apache. Your introductory note also talked about "the
commitment of the Apache OO.o Podling to implementation of the
proposal...". This is also meaningless. I commit to nothing. Those
who volunteer to do the work are the ones who do the work. The
proposal didn't ask the PPMC to do anything.
-Rob
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:grobmeier@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 00:09
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
>
> 2011/10/13 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>:
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Wondering why the discussion is on the wiki as comments?
>>
>> Juergen
>
> There was discussion on this list, onn the forum, on the wiki and then
> back on the forum. These wiki comments are meanwhile outdated, you can
> basically ignore them, except you have an "historical interest". But
> then you should also read the forums.
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
>>> discussion can stop. If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
>>> acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
>>> separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
>>> Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the
>>> Apache
>>> OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its provisions
>>> for
>>> governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o Podling.
>>>
>>> GUIDELINES
>>>
>>> The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
>>> Forums operators. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.
>>>
>>> Instead, discuss suggestions and modifications on this list and await any
>>> changes to be made as the OpenOffice.org Forum operators choose to offer
>>> improvements in response to the discussion, including based on ooo-dev
>>> suggestions of their own.
>>>
>>> When it is concluded that the Draft Proposal is in a final condition
>>> suitable
>>> for ratification, the OpenOffice.org Forum operators will notify us of
>>> their
>>> readiness (repeatedly if there is still ongoing discussion and
>>> improvement).
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>
RE: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
So, shall it simply be concluded that the proposal in its current form has been accepted without objection?
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 17:57
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> The stated [DISCUSS] expiration of midnight, today, 2011-10-17T24:00Z has arrived.
>
> The discussion has quieted and there appears to be no objection to conducting a [VOTE] ratifying the PPMC acceptance of the proposal, with the modest adjustments that were made.
>
> On a different thread, it was observed that, since there is no further discussion, and there was no opposition, the proposal should be considered ratified, a sort of lazy consensus:
> <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201110.mbox/%3cCAP-ksogkFzGgLB0ALY=vJaP7Q3D2pEFuCc-v1M3+RpOXuO7cDg@mail.gmail.com%3e>.
>
> I want to be clear, that this [DISCUSS] was not for voting but to review the proposal in preparation for voting. Although it might be assumed that there is no objection to the proposal's adoption by the PPMC, that was not the question.
>
> I am also concerned that the OpenOffice.org Forum operators are being denied an important ceremonial act on our part.
>
> Since it would take as long to introduce a lazy consensus, now, as to actually conduct the [VOTE], I intend to go ahead with the [VOTE] once I come up with an appropriate wording and message. Then it will all be clear, won't it?
>
Actually, I object to the ceremony of a poorly motivated vote.. There
were no objections to the proposal. The forum volunteers should go
ahead and implement the proposal.
Your use of the term "ratify" is meaningless since there is no such
thing at Apache. Your introductory note also talked about "the
commitment of the Apache OO.o Podling to implementation of the
proposal...". This is also meaningless. I commit to nothing. Those
who volunteer to do the work are the ones who do the work. The
proposal didn't ask the PPMC to do anything.
-Rob
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:grobmeier@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 00:09
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
>
> 2011/10/13 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>:
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Wondering why the discussion is on the wiki as comments?
>>
>> Juergen
>
> There was discussion on this list, onn the forum, on the wiki and then
> back on the forum. These wiki comments are meanwhile outdated, you can
> basically ignore them, except you have an "historical interest". But
> then you should also read the forums.
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
>>> discussion can stop. If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
>>> acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
>>> separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
>>> Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the
>>> Apache
>>> OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its provisions
>>> for
>>> governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o Podling.
>>>
>>> GUIDELINES
>>>
>>> The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
>>> Forums operators. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.
>>>
>>> Instead, discuss suggestions and modifications on this list and await any
>>> changes to be made as the OpenOffice.org Forum operators choose to offer
>>> improvements in response to the discussion, including based on ooo-dev
>>> suggestions of their own.
>>>
>>> When it is concluded that the Draft Proposal is in a final condition
>>> suitable
>>> for ratification, the OpenOffice.org Forum operators will notify us of
>>> their
>>> readiness (repeatedly if there is still ongoing discussion and
>>> improvement).
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> The stated [DISCUSS] expiration of midnight, today, 2011-10-17T24:00Z has arrived.
>
> The discussion has quieted and there appears to be no objection to conducting a [VOTE] ratifying the PPMC acceptance of the proposal, with the modest adjustments that were made.
>
> On a different thread, it was observed that, since there is no further discussion, and there was no opposition, the proposal should be considered ratified, a sort of lazy consensus:
> <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201110.mbox/%3cCAP-ksogkFzGgLB0ALY=vJaP7Q3D2pEFuCc-v1M3+RpOXuO7cDg@mail.gmail.com%3e>.
>
> I want to be clear, that this [DISCUSS] was not for voting but to review the proposal in preparation for voting. Although it might be assumed that there is no objection to the proposal's adoption by the PPMC, that was not the question.
>
> I am also concerned that the OpenOffice.org Forum operators are being denied an important ceremonial act on our part.
>
> Since it would take as long to introduce a lazy consensus, now, as to actually conduct the [VOTE], I intend to go ahead with the [VOTE] once I come up with an appropriate wording and message. Then it will all be clear, won't it?
>
Actually, I object to the ceremony of a poorly motivated vote.. There
were no objections to the proposal. The forum volunteers should go
ahead and implement the proposal.
Your use of the term "ratify" is meaningless since there is no such
thing at Apache. Your introductory note also talked about "the
commitment of the Apache OO.o Podling to implementation of the
proposal...". This is also meaningless. I commit to nothing. Those
who volunteer to do the work are the ones who do the work. The
proposal didn't ask the PPMC to do anything.
-Rob
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:grobmeier@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 00:09
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
>
> 2011/10/13 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>:
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Wondering why the discussion is on the wiki as comments?
>>
>> Juergen
>
> There was discussion on this list, onn the forum, on the wiki and then
> back on the forum. These wiki comments are meanwhile outdated, you can
> basically ignore them, except you have an "historical interest". But
> then you should also read the forums.
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
>>> discussion can stop. If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
>>> acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
>>> separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
>>> Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the
>>> Apache
>>> OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its provisions
>>> for
>>> governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o Podling.
>>>
>>> GUIDELINES
>>>
>>> The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
>>> Forums operators. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.
>>>
>>> Instead, discuss suggestions and modifications on this list and await any
>>> changes to be made as the OpenOffice.org Forum operators choose to offer
>>> improvements in response to the discussion, including based on ooo-dev
>>> suggestions of their own.
>>>
>>> When it is concluded that the Draft Proposal is in a final condition
>>> suitable
>>> for ratification, the OpenOffice.org Forum operators will notify us of
>>> their
>>> readiness (repeatedly if there is still ongoing discussion and
>>> improvement).
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>
RE: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
The stated [DISCUSS] expiration of midnight, today, 2011-10-17T24:00Z has arrived.
The discussion has quieted and there appears to be no objection to conducting a [VOTE] ratifying the PPMC acceptance of the proposal, with the modest adjustments that were made.
On a different thread, it was observed that, since there is no further discussion, and there was no opposition, the proposal should be considered ratified, a sort of lazy consensus:
<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201110.mbox/%3cCAP-ksogkFzGgLB0ALY=vJaP7Q3D2pEFuCc-v1M3+RpOXuO7cDg@mail.gmail.com%3e>.
I want to be clear, that this [DISCUSS] was not for voting but to review the proposal in preparation for voting. Although it might be assumed that there is no objection to the proposal's adoption by the PPMC, that was not the question.
I am also concerned that the OpenOffice.org Forum operators are being denied an important ceremonial act on our part.
Since it would take as long to introduce a lazy consensus, now, as to actually conduct the [VOTE], I intend to go ahead with the [VOTE] once I come up with an appropriate wording and message. Then it will all be clear, won't it?
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:grobmeier@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 00:09
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
2011/10/13 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>wrote:
> Wondering why the discussion is on the wiki as comments?
>
> Juergen
There was discussion on this list, onn the forum, on the wiki and then
back on the forum. These wiki comments are meanwhile outdated, you can
basically ignore them, except you have an "historical interest". But
then you should also read the forums.
Cheers
>
>
>
>>
>> Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
>> discussion can stop. If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
>> acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
>> separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
>> Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the
>> Apache
>> OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its provisions
>> for
>> governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o Podling.
>>
>> GUIDELINES
>>
>> The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
>> Forums operators. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.
>>
>> Instead, discuss suggestions and modifications on this list and await any
>> changes to be made as the OpenOffice.org Forum operators choose to offer
>> improvements in response to the discussion, including based on ooo-dev
>> suggestions of their own.
>>
>> When it is concluded that the Draft Proposal is in a final condition
>> suitable
>> for ratification, the OpenOffice.org Forum operators will notify us of
>> their
>> readiness (repeatedly if there is still ongoing discussion and
>> improvement).
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
2011/10/13 Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>wrote:
> Wondering why the discussion is on the wiki as comments?
>
> Juergen
There was discussion on this list, onn the forum, on the wiki and then
back on the forum. These wiki comments are meanwhile outdated, you can
basically ignore them, except you have an "historical interest". But
then you should also read the forums.
Cheers
>
>
>
>>
>> Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
>> discussion can stop. If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
>> acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
>> separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
>> Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the
>> Apache
>> OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its provisions
>> for
>> governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o Podling.
>>
>> GUIDELINES
>>
>> The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
>> Forums operators. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.
>>
>> Instead, discuss suggestions and modifications on this list and await any
>> changes to be made as the OpenOffice.org Forum operators choose to offer
>> improvements in response to the discussion, including based on ooo-dev
>> suggestions of their own.
>>
>> When it is concluded that the Draft Proposal is in a final condition
>> suitable
>> for ratification, the OpenOffice.org Forum operators will notify us of
>> their
>> readiness (repeatedly if there is still ongoing discussion and
>> improvement).
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: [DISCUSS] Review of OpenOffice.org Forums Agreement
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>wrote:
> The Draft Proposal for governance and operation of the OpenOffice.org
> Forums
> within the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling is available on the Apache OO.o
> Community Wiki at
> <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project
> >.
>
> The Draft Proposal is the work of the OpenOffice.org Forums operators, with
> consultation of Apache contributors.
>
> It is proposed to discuss this proposal for at least 6 days starting now,
> Tuesday 2011-10-11, and ending at midnight Monday, 2011-10-17T24:00Z.
>
well done proposal and i really appreciated that we continue to move forward
in a constructive and promising way.
And having the forum under a *.openoffice.org domain is great for our users
because that is what they expected (at least form my pov).
And the Apache infra structure team can hopefully benefit from the knowledge
to run a forum for other Apache projects as well.
Wondering why the discussion is on the wiki as comments?
Juergen
>
> Once discussion of the Draft Proposal has quieted by that time or later,
> discussion can stop. If it is then evident that a ratifying ballot on
> acceptance of the Draft Proposal by the Apache OO.o Podling can be held, a
> separate [VOTE] will be initiated on the ooo-dev list for that purpose.
> Ratification of the Draft Proposal will establish the commitment of the
> Apache
> OO.o Podling to implementation of the proposal and honoring its provisions
> for
> governance of the OpenOffice.org Forums as part of the Apache OO.o Podling.
>
> GUIDELINES
>
> The Draft Proposal represents the current thinking of the OpenOffice.org
> Forums operators. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE DRAFT PROPOSAL page.
>
> Instead, discuss suggestions and modifications on this list and await any
> changes to be made as the OpenOffice.org Forum operators choose to offer
> improvements in response to the discussion, including based on ooo-dev
> suggestions of their own.
>
> When it is concluded that the Draft Proposal is in a final condition
> suitable
> for ratification, the OpenOffice.org Forum operators will notify us of
> their
> readiness (repeatedly if there is still ongoing discussion and
> improvement).
>
> - Dennis
>