You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> on 2011/09/07 01:07:57 UTC
[PROPOSAL] Support forums
While this is headed "proposal", it is more a suggestion for a direction to
explore than a fully-formed proposal on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
Given the AOOo project has not made a code release that needs support, and
given there is no timeline to one, perhaps the best plan with user-facing
activities such as the support forums is to leave them functioning as they
are for now.
I realise this may raise other issues:
1. Use of domain name
The project could ask legal@ to temporarily grant permission to the Support
Forums to keep using the domain name until releases have been made at AOOo.
Even then it's possible that we'll want to continue a "licensing"
arrangement.
2. Hosting
In the event Oracle indicates the current hosting will terminate within a
given window, a third-party host outside Apache can most likely be found to
offer continuity for the existing software. Or we could proactively identify
a volunteer hosting arrangement.
3. Oversight
Plenty of the existing volunteers are participating here. Until there is
actually a release to support, there's actually no strong and obvious reason
why this project needs more oversight than that.
In the interests of a compromise that accommodates all interests, I thus
propose we explore how best to leave things unchanged until we actually have
a need to change them. Friendly amendments invited :-)
S.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 7 Sep 2011, at 00:28, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> On 9/6/2011 7:07 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> ...snip...
>> 1. Use of domain name
>> The project could ask legal@ to temporarily grant permission to the Support
>> Forums to keep using the domain name until releases have been made at AOOo.
>> Even then it's possible that we'll want to continue a "licensing"
>> arrangement.
>
> I would be uncomfortable with this arrangement, and personally think it's a step backwards from the turn towards a much friendlier and more productive discussion on the matter of forum governance that's just started.
>
> I agree this is a process that will take some time, so it's not like all changes have to happen tomorrow or even in the next several weeks. But I don't see pushing for the "licensing" being a productive or likely step to happen.
Can you explain why please Shane? I hear your assertion but I don't see an explanation of why this suggested temporary arrangement is a show stopper for the rest of the proposal you snipped.
Thanks
Simon
Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 9/6/2011 7:07 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
...snip...
> 1. Use of domain name
> The project could ask legal@ to temporarily grant permission to the Support
> Forums to keep using the domain name until releases have been made at AOOo.
> Even then it's possible that we'll want to continue a "licensing"
> arrangement.
I would be uncomfortable with this arrangement, and personally think
it's a step backwards from the turn towards a much friendlier and more
productive discussion on the matter of forum governance that's just started.
I agree this is a process that will take some time, so it's not like all
changes have to happen tomorrow or even in the next several weeks. But
I don't see pushing for the "licensing" being a productive or likely
step to happen.
- Shane, <hat type="mentor"/>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:10 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 23:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
...
>>> Right now, it looks like we're waiting for the forum volunteers
>>> discuss among themselves and come back with a proposal.
>>
>> Oh for crying out loud - no that is not where we are - Christian put up
>> a proposal - you put up an amended version on the ML - you, I and others
>> then worked over a few of those points all freaking day long - I thought
>> moving in the right direction pretty darn well, and thought it was down
>> to one point, that's it and even there given posts from ASF
>> mentors/leaders that this was all but a done deal also.
>>
>
> Drew, as an employee of a large corporation, I need to take those
> kinds of claims seriously. They are not laughing matters and I cannot
> ignore the claim once it has been made.
Rob,
can you then bring a concrete suggestion? It feels like we are moving
in the circle.
So many people said it can be done. The forum volunteers seem to be
fine with pretty everything we have spoken on.
Please make concrete suggestions to modify the proposal on the wiki.
My guess is you wanted to say that the volunteer group donates the
forum and its content to the ASF with an code grant at the same time
they are joining the ASF. Or something like that.
You discuss as it were the forum folks who want to urgently join this
project. In fact we want them too. We need to cooperate now and help
them to come into ooo-dev. Of course we force nobody to join - they
have shown already they *want* to join because they have participated
actively this discussion.
I ask you now to open a new paragraph on the proposal maybe called "To
be done" or so and shortly ask the questions what you want to see
answered. Otherwise we'll all get killed by tons of e-mails and to be
honest, I am not getting paid for this and it is pretty hard to read
the same arguments in different words all over and over.
Cheers
> However, if, on further
> reflection, you think the claim was made in error, or that it needs
> clarification, then you should post a retraction, in the same thread
> as the original notice. Then we're moving again. Of course, if you
> believe the claim is accurate then we'll need to work this out the
> long way. I don't mind doing it the long way, and in fact we should
> do it the long way, e.g., an SGA, if you think the rights belong to
> the forum volunteers. That would be the right thing in that case.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Rob
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> //drew
>>
>>
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:10 AM, drew <dr...@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 23:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Not everything people do needs to be scrutinized
>> > to each PPMC member's satisfaction. If you do that
>> > without any concern for people's emotions you will
>> > wind up with more outcomes like this one. Some
>> > things are better left up to people with enough
>> > experience and expertise that minor organizational
>> > problems can be "finessed" effectively without
>> > major turmoil ensuing. Part of why I offered
>> > to mentor this project was to apply some of that
>> > expertise here, but I feel so far my time has largely
>> > been a wasted effort and am considering tossing
>> > in the towel myself as a result.
>> >
>>
>> The forum volunteers came out, declared that they had always been
>> independent of the OpenOffice project, that they had a separate
>> contractual agreement with Oracle to host the forums at OpenOffice.org
>> and that they owned the content. That was what they posted to the list
>> [1].
>>
>> Do you really think at that point, after receiving that note, it would
>> be prudent to just move ahead with the migration? Is this really a
>> "minor organizational problem"? Their note looks more like a red
>> light than a green light to me.
>>
>> Right now, it looks like we're waiting for the forum volunteers
>> discuss among themselves and come back with a proposal.
>
> Oh for crying out loud - no that is not where we are - Christian put up
> a proposal - you put up an amended version on the ML - you, I and others
> then worked over a few of those points all freaking day long - I thought
> moving in the right direction pretty darn well, and thought it was down
> to one point, that's it and even there given posts from ASF
> mentors/leaders that this was all but a done deal also.
>
> Ok yes - I sucked in my belly and pounded on my chest..seemed right at
> the time - heck it even felt good..sort of *smile*.
>
> Otherwise - for the most part I think we have tried to answer your
> questions, to explain how thing ended up the way they are currently
> structured and why and have looked for ways to fit in..
>
> So tell me what am I missing here - cause it really is starting to feel
> like there is something that I've totally overlooked...
>
Drew, as an employee of a large corporation, I need to take those
kinds of claims seriously. They are not laughing matters and I cannot
ignore the claim once it has been made. However, if, on further
reflection, you think the claim was made in error, or that it needs
clarification, then you should post a retraction, in the same thread
as the original notice. Then we're moving again. Of course, if you
believe the claim is accurate then we'll need to work this out the
long way. I don't mind doing it the long way, and in fact we should
do it the long way, e.g., an SGA, if you think the rights belong to
the forum volunteers. That would be the right thing in that case.
Thanks,
-Rob
> <snip>
>
> //drew
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
Posted by drew <dr...@baseanswers.com>.
On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 23:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Not everything people do needs to be scrutinized
> > to each PPMC member's satisfaction. If you do that
> > without any concern for people's emotions you will
> > wind up with more outcomes like this one. Some
> > things are better left up to people with enough
> > experience and expertise that minor organizational
> > problems can be "finessed" effectively without
> > major turmoil ensuing. Part of why I offered
> > to mentor this project was to apply some of that
> > expertise here, but I feel so far my time has largely
> > been a wasted effort and am considering tossing
> > in the towel myself as a result.
> >
>
> The forum volunteers came out, declared that they had always been
> independent of the OpenOffice project, that they had a separate
> contractual agreement with Oracle to host the forums at OpenOffice.org
> and that they owned the content. That was what they posted to the list
> [1].
>
> Do you really think at that point, after receiving that note, it would
> be prudent to just move ahead with the migration? Is this really a
> "minor organizational problem"? Their note looks more like a red
> light than a green light to me.
>
> Right now, it looks like we're waiting for the forum volunteers
> discuss among themselves and come back with a proposal.
Oh for crying out loud - no that is not where we are - Christian put up
a proposal - you put up an amended version on the ML - you, I and others
then worked over a few of those points all freaking day long - I thought
moving in the right direction pretty darn well, and thought it was down
to one point, that's it and even there given posts from ASF
mentors/leaders that this was all but a done deal also.
Ok yes - I sucked in my belly and pounded on my chest..seemed right at
the time - heck it even felt good..sort of *smile*.
Otherwise - for the most part I think we have tried to answer your
questions, to explain how thing ended up the way they are currently
structured and why and have looked for ways to fit in..
So tell me what am I missing here - cause it really is starting to feel
like there is something that I've totally overlooked...
<snip>
//drew
Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
It's like talking to a wall with you.
If I say that as an ooo mentor and Apache
sysadmin I have no issues with bringing
on the forums immediately and settling
the ownership question down the road, that
doesn'tmean I'm asking you to continue to
applyyour owninterpretation of what it all
means and to insist that no, nothing will in
factbe done unless Rob has personally sniffed
everyone's underwear and found it to be
free from undue smell.
As I said I'm tired of being undercut here,
and have precious few reasons to remain a mentor
on this project if things don't change in the
near future.
>________________________________
>From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2011 12:02 AM
>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
>
>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Yes frankly I consider that a minor bump
>> along the way. As drew pointed out the
>> Volunteers wish to transfer their "ownership"
>> of the forums to the ASF. I see no reason
>> to gate host migration on that "transfer" being
>> carried out in advance. I haven't seen any
>> actual contracts (or confirmation by Oracle people)
>> so I use quotes aroundthese items, but have no
>> reason to doubttheir accuracy at this point.
>>
>
>Drew wrote:
>
>"First - the current owners of the OpenOffice.org User Community
>Forums, the instance of the phpBB softwaree and the content within the
>attached database is owned by the group of individuals known as the
>Volunteer Group within the forum"
>
>So the claim is not "ownership" of the forums in some stewardship
>sense. This is specifically a claim of ownership of the content.
>IANAL, but I don't think we should dismiss that claim too hastily.
>Even out of respect for their emotions, it would be unwise to just
>move forward without their explicit permission.
>
>>
>> And no it's not aggressive, it's what they *want*.
>>
>
>Drew said it was his "personal wish" that the forums would be
>transferred to Apache, but he also wrote:
>
>"Fourth - The owners of the OpenOffice.org User Community Forums have
>an explicit right to relocate the services provided at
>user.services.openoffice.org, along with all content generated by the
>site, to a new location solely at the discretion of the Volunteer
>Group."
>
>He also says that the Volunteer Group "currently consists of 75
>individuals". So we have one volunteer's "personal wish" and a claim
>of content ownership by 75 volunteers.
>
>Of course, there was intent to move to Apache expressed by some of the
>other admins on the list, as well but we never heard from anywhere
>close to 75 volunteers. And then there was that note, which I don't
>think we should just ignore. I hope it is not considered too
>aggressive to actually listen to the forum volunteers when they say
>something as carefully as they did in that note.
>
>> Nobody's under any illusions that their current
>> "ownership" of the forums will be maintained going
>> forward.
>>
>
>I think the forum volunteers, as a group, need to come to an
>understanding among themselves as to what they want. Ideally they
>would put that in the form of a proposal that we (PPMC) can discuss
>and approve. I think we can have a reasonable discussion on that
>which respects the prerogatives they have based on their claims of
>ownership and their collective priorities, and which also respects the
>PPMC's prerogatives based on our collective priorities and
>responsibilities. I'm not quite sure what "ownership" in quotes
>means, so I wont' speculate specifically on a nebulous term. My main
>point is their claim of ownership was not in quotes and was not
>ambiguous.
>
>-Rob
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>________________________________
>>>From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 11:29 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
>>>
>>>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Not everything people do needs to be scrutinized
>>>> to each PPMC member's satisfaction. If you do that
>>>> without any concern for people's emotions you will
>>>> wind up with more outcomes like this one. Some
>>>> things are better left up to people with enough
>>>> experience and expertise that minor organizational
>>>> problems can be "finessed" effectively without
>>>> major turmoil ensuing. Part of why I offered
>>>> to mentor this project was to apply some of that
>>>> expertise here, but I feel so far my time has largely
>>>> been a wasted effort and am considering tossing
>>>> in the towel myself as a result.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The forum volunteers came out, declared that they had always been
>>>independent of the OpenOffice project, that they had a separate
>>>contractual agreement with Oracle to host the forums at OpenOffice.org
>>>and that they owned the content. That was what they posted to the list
>>>[1].
>>>
>>>Do you really think at that point, after receiving that note, it would
>>>be prudent to just move ahead with the migration? Is this really a
>>>"minor organizational problem"? Their note looks more like a red
>>>light than a green light to me.
>>>
>>>Right now, it looks like we're waiting for the forum volunteers
>>>discuss among themselves and come back with a proposal. Do you, are
>>>anyone else, have a counter proposal for what we should be doing?
>>>Personally I don't think their note really gives us much freedom of
>>>action. If we move forward with migration that would be quite
>>>aggressive at this point, after their claim of ownership.
>>>
>>>-Rob
>>>
>>>[1] http://markmail.org/message/zozbslbelnjlqrlh
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>________________________________
>>>>>From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>>>>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 10:52 PM
>>>>>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
>>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Look Simon, while I obviously don't have the time nor
>>>>>> the inclination to comment on every suggestion made on
>>>>>> this list, all I've *ever* expected us to do with the
>>>>>> forums is to just start hosting it on ASF gear. The
>>>>>> only modifications infra wanted were with respect to
>>>>>> bringing the codebase up to the latest available
>>>>>> version(s).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frontloading this effort with a bunch of social and technical
>>>>>> red tape servesneither the ASF nor the goals of the Apache
>>>>>> Way, whichis supposed to involve gradual, evolutionary changes
>>>>>> toboth communities and to code. Revolutions are not called
>>>>>> for at this particular juncture; it's hard enough work
>>>>>> to just move things over (both code-wise and community-wise)
>>>>>> largely unchanged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Joe, no one is asking for a revolution. In fact I'm suggesting that
>>>>>the forum volunteers taking their time and think this through
>>>>>carefully before deciding. Others were urging swift action, that the
>>>>>forums should be quickly integrated without any discussions at all. I
>>>>>think that is the more revolutionary approach, bypassing PPMC
>>>>>discussion and consensus building.
>>>>>
>>>>>If we saw eye to eye on the broad strokes of collaboration but
>>>>>differed in the fine details, then I could see letting that work
>>>>>itself out as the Podling worked toward graduation. But clearly the
>>>>>gulf of expectations was too large in this case. We'll be close
>>>>>enough when we are confident that the details can work themselves out
>>>>>on the path to graduation. I think we're getting closer. You might
>>>>>think we're already there, or we're always been there. That's your
>>>>>opinion. Others may share it as well. But if everyone but me thought
>>>>>that then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Elephants
>>>>>aside, I may be the most obnoxious person speaking these views, but
>>>>>I'm far from the only one that thinks working out a common
>>>>>understanding now makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>>-Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes frankly I consider that a minor bump
> along the way. As drew pointed out the
> Volunteers wish to transfer their "ownership"
> of the forums to the ASF. I see no reason
> to gate host migration on that "transfer" being
> carried out in advance. I haven't seen any
> actual contracts (or confirmation by Oracle people)
> so I use quotes aroundthese items, but have no
> reason to doubttheir accuracy at this point.
>
Drew wrote:
"First - the current owners of the OpenOffice.org User Community
Forums, the instance of the phpBB softwaree and the content within the
attached database is owned by the group of individuals known as the
Volunteer Group within the forum"
So the claim is not "ownership" of the forums in some stewardship
sense. This is specifically a claim of ownership of the content.
IANAL, but I don't think we should dismiss that claim too hastily.
Even out of respect for their emotions, it would be unwise to just
move forward without their explicit permission.
>
> And no it's not aggressive, it's what they *want*.
>
Drew said it was his "personal wish" that the forums would be
transferred to Apache, but he also wrote:
"Fourth - The owners of the OpenOffice.org User Community Forums have
an explicit right to relocate the services provided at
user.services.openoffice.org, along with all content generated by the
site, to a new location solely at the discretion of the Volunteer
Group."
He also says that the Volunteer Group "currently consists of 75
individuals". So we have one volunteer's "personal wish" and a claim
of content ownership by 75 volunteers.
Of course, there was intent to move to Apache expressed by some of the
other admins on the list, as well but we never heard from anywhere
close to 75 volunteers. And then there was that note, which I don't
think we should just ignore. I hope it is not considered too
aggressive to actually listen to the forum volunteers when they say
something as carefully as they did in that note.
> Nobody's under any illusions that their current
> "ownership" of the forums will be maintained going
> forward.
>
I think the forum volunteers, as a group, need to come to an
understanding among themselves as to what they want. Ideally they
would put that in the form of a proposal that we (PPMC) can discuss
and approve. I think we can have a reasonable discussion on that
which respects the prerogatives they have based on their claims of
ownership and their collective priorities, and which also respects the
PPMC's prerogatives based on our collective priorities and
responsibilities. I'm not quite sure what "ownership" in quotes
means, so I wont' speculate specifically on a nebulous term. My main
point is their claim of ownership was not in quotes and was not
ambiguous.
-Rob
>
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>>From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 11:29 PM
>>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
>>
>>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Not everything people do needs to be scrutinized
>>> to each PPMC member's satisfaction. If you do that
>>> without any concern for people's emotions you will
>>> wind up with more outcomes like this one. Some
>>> things are better left up to people with enough
>>> experience and expertise that minor organizational
>>> problems can be "finessed" effectively without
>>> major turmoil ensuing. Part of why I offered
>>> to mentor this project was to apply some of that
>>> expertise here, but I feel so far my time has largely
>>> been a wasted effort and am considering tossing
>>> in the towel myself as a result.
>>>
>>
>>The forum volunteers came out, declared that they had always been
>>independent of the OpenOffice project, that they had a separate
>>contractual agreement with Oracle to host the forums at OpenOffice.org
>>and that they owned the content. That was what they posted to the list
>>[1].
>>
>>Do you really think at that point, after receiving that note, it would
>>be prudent to just move ahead with the migration? Is this really a
>>"minor organizational problem"? Their note looks more like a red
>>light than a green light to me.
>>
>>Right now, it looks like we're waiting for the forum volunteers
>>discuss among themselves and come back with a proposal. Do you, are
>>anyone else, have a counter proposal for what we should be doing?
>>Personally I don't think their note really gives us much freedom of
>>action. If we move forward with migration that would be quite
>>aggressive at this point, after their claim of ownership.
>>
>>-Rob
>>
>>[1] http://markmail.org/message/zozbslbelnjlqrlh
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>________________________________
>>>>From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>>>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 10:52 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Look Simon, while I obviously don't have the time nor
>>>>> the inclination to comment on every suggestion made on
>>>>> this list, all I've *ever* expected us to do with the
>>>>> forums is to just start hosting it on ASF gear. The
>>>>> only modifications infra wanted were with respect to
>>>>> bringing the codebase up to the latest available
>>>>> version(s).
>>>>>
>>>>> Frontloading this effort with a bunch of social and technical
>>>>> red tape servesneither the ASF nor the goals of the Apache
>>>>> Way, whichis supposed to involve gradual, evolutionary changes
>>>>> toboth communities and to code. Revolutions are not called
>>>>> for at this particular juncture; it's hard enough work
>>>>> to just move things over (both code-wise and community-wise)
>>>>> largely unchanged.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Joe, no one is asking for a revolution. In fact I'm suggesting that
>>>>the forum volunteers taking their time and think this through
>>>>carefully before deciding. Others were urging swift action, that the
>>>>forums should be quickly integrated without any discussions at all. I
>>>>think that is the more revolutionary approach, bypassing PPMC
>>>>discussion and consensus building.
>>>>
>>>>If we saw eye to eye on the broad strokes of collaboration but
>>>>differed in the fine details, then I could see letting that work
>>>>itself out as the Podling worked toward graduation. But clearly the
>>>>gulf of expectations was too large in this case. We'll be close
>>>>enough when we are confident that the details can work themselves out
>>>>on the path to graduation. I think we're getting closer. You might
>>>>think we're already there, or we're always been there. That's your
>>>>opinion. Others may share it as well. But if everyone but me thought
>>>>that then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Elephants
>>>>aside, I may be the most obnoxious person speaking these views, but
>>>>I'm far from the only one that thinks working out a common
>>>>understanding now makes sense.
>>>>
>>>>-Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
Yes frankly I consider that a minor bump
along the way. As drew pointed out the
Volunteers wish to transfer their "ownership"
of the forums to the ASF. I see no reason
to gate host migration on that "transfer" being
carried out in advance. I haven't seen any
actual contracts (or confirmation by Oracle people)
so I use quotes aroundthese items, but have no
reason to doubttheir accuracy at this point.
And no it's not aggressive, it's what they *want*.
Nobody's under any illusions that their current
"ownership" of the forums will be maintained going
forward.
>________________________________
>From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 11:29 PM
>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
>
>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Not everything people do needs to be scrutinized
>> to each PPMC member's satisfaction. If you do that
>> without any concern for people's emotions you will
>> wind up with more outcomes like this one. Some
>> things are better left up to people with enough
>> experience and expertise that minor organizational
>> problems can be "finessed" effectively without
>> major turmoil ensuing. Part of why I offered
>> to mentor this project was to apply some of that
>> expertise here, but I feel so far my time has largely
>> been a wasted effort and am considering tossing
>> in the towel myself as a result.
>>
>
>The forum volunteers came out, declared that they had always been
>independent of the OpenOffice project, that they had a separate
>contractual agreement with Oracle to host the forums at OpenOffice.org
>and that they owned the content. That was what they posted to the list
>[1].
>
>Do you really think at that point, after receiving that note, it would
>be prudent to just move ahead with the migration? Is this really a
>"minor organizational problem"? Their note looks more like a red
>light than a green light to me.
>
>Right now, it looks like we're waiting for the forum volunteers
>discuss among themselves and come back with a proposal. Do you, are
>anyone else, have a counter proposal for what we should be doing?
>Personally I don't think their note really gives us much freedom of
>action. If we move forward with migration that would be quite
>aggressive at this point, after their claim of ownership.
>
>-Rob
>
>[1] http://markmail.org/message/zozbslbelnjlqrlh
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>________________________________
>>>From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 10:52 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
>>>
>>>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Look Simon, while I obviously don't have the time nor
>>>> the inclination to comment on every suggestion made on
>>>> this list, all I've *ever* expected us to do with the
>>>> forums is to just start hosting it on ASF gear. The
>>>> only modifications infra wanted were with respect to
>>>> bringing the codebase up to the latest available
>>>> version(s).
>>>>
>>>> Frontloading this effort with a bunch of social and technical
>>>> red tape servesneither the ASF nor the goals of the Apache
>>>> Way, whichis supposed to involve gradual, evolutionary changes
>>>> toboth communities and to code. Revolutions are not called
>>>> for at this particular juncture; it's hard enough work
>>>> to just move things over (both code-wise and community-wise)
>>>> largely unchanged.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Joe, no one is asking for a revolution. In fact I'm suggesting that
>>>the forum volunteers taking their time and think this through
>>>carefully before deciding. Others were urging swift action, that the
>>>forums should be quickly integrated without any discussions at all. I
>>>think that is the more revolutionary approach, bypassing PPMC
>>>discussion and consensus building.
>>>
>>>If we saw eye to eye on the broad strokes of collaboration but
>>>differed in the fine details, then I could see letting that work
>>>itself out as the Podling worked toward graduation. But clearly the
>>>gulf of expectations was too large in this case. We'll be close
>>>enough when we are confident that the details can work themselves out
>>>on the path to graduation. I think we're getting closer. You might
>>>think we're already there, or we're always been there. That's your
>>>opinion. Others may share it as well. But if everyone but me thought
>>>that then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Elephants
>>>aside, I may be the most obnoxious person speaking these views, but
>>>I'm far from the only one that thinks working out a common
>>>understanding now makes sense.
>>>
>>>-Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not everything people do needs to be scrutinized
> to each PPMC member's satisfaction. If you do that
> without any concern for people's emotions you will
> wind up with more outcomes like this one. Some
> things are better left up to people with enough
> experience and expertise that minor organizational
> problems can be "finessed" effectively without
> major turmoil ensuing. Part of why I offered
> to mentor this project was to apply some of that
> expertise here, but I feel so far my time has largely
> been a wasted effort and am considering tossing
> in the towel myself as a result.
>
The forum volunteers came out, declared that they had always been
independent of the OpenOffice project, that they had a separate
contractual agreement with Oracle to host the forums at OpenOffice.org
and that they owned the content. That was what they posted to the list
[1].
Do you really think at that point, after receiving that note, it would
be prudent to just move ahead with the migration? Is this really a
"minor organizational problem"? Their note looks more like a red
light than a green light to me.
Right now, it looks like we're waiting for the forum volunteers
discuss among themselves and come back with a proposal. Do you, are
anyone else, have a counter proposal for what we should be doing?
Personally I don't think their note really gives us much freedom of
action. If we move forward with migration that would be quite
aggressive at this point, after their claim of ownership.
-Rob
[1] http://markmail.org/message/zozbslbelnjlqrlh
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>>From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 10:52 PM
>>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
>>
>>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Look Simon, while I obviously don't have the time nor
>>> the inclination to comment on every suggestion made on
>>> this list, all I've *ever* expected us to do with the
>>> forums is to just start hosting it on ASF gear. The
>>> only modifications infra wanted were with respect to
>>> bringing the codebase up to the latest available
>>> version(s).
>>>
>>> Frontloading this effort with a bunch of social and technical
>>> red tape servesneither the ASF nor the goals of the Apache
>>> Way, whichis supposed to involve gradual, evolutionary changes
>>> toboth communities and to code. Revolutions are not called
>>> for at this particular juncture; it's hard enough work
>>> to just move things over (both code-wise and community-wise)
>>> largely unchanged.
>>>
>>
>>Joe, no one is asking for a revolution. In fact I'm suggesting that
>>the forum volunteers taking their time and think this through
>>carefully before deciding. Others were urging swift action, that the
>>forums should be quickly integrated without any discussions at all. I
>>think that is the more revolutionary approach, bypassing PPMC
>>discussion and consensus building.
>>
>>If we saw eye to eye on the broad strokes of collaboration but
>>differed in the fine details, then I could see letting that work
>>itself out as the Podling worked toward graduation. But clearly the
>>gulf of expectations was too large in this case. We'll be close
>>enough when we are confident that the details can work themselves out
>>on the path to graduation. I think we're getting closer. You might
>>think we're already there, or we're always been there. That's your
>>opinion. Others may share it as well. But if everyone but me thought
>>that then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Elephants
>>aside, I may be the most obnoxious person speaking these views, but
>>I'm far from the only one that thinks working out a common
>>understanding now makes sense.
>>
>>-Rob
>>
>>
>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
Not everything people do needs to be scrutinized
to each PPMC member's satisfaction. If you do that
without any concern for people's emotions you will
wind up with more outcomes like this one. Some
things are better left up to people with enough
experience and expertise that minor organizational
problems can be "finessed" effectively without
major turmoil ensuing. Part of why I offered
to mentor this project was to apply some of that
expertise here, but I feel so far my time has largely
been a wasted effort and am considering tossing
in the towel myself as a result.
>________________________________
>From: Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 10:52 PM
>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
>
>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Look Simon, while I obviously don't have the time nor
>> the inclination to comment on every suggestion made on
>> this list, all I've *ever* expected us to do with the
>> forums is to just start hosting it on ASF gear. The
>> only modifications infra wanted were with respect to
>> bringing the codebase up to the latest available
>> version(s).
>>
>> Frontloading this effort with a bunch of social and technical
>> red tape servesneither the ASF nor the goals of the Apache
>> Way, whichis supposed to involve gradual, evolutionary changes
>> toboth communities and to code. Revolutions are not called
>> for at this particular juncture; it's hard enough work
>> to just move things over (both code-wise and community-wise)
>> largely unchanged.
>>
>
>Joe, no one is asking for a revolution. In fact I'm suggesting that
>the forum volunteers taking their time and think this through
>carefully before deciding. Others were urging swift action, that the
>forums should be quickly integrated without any discussions at all. I
>think that is the more revolutionary approach, bypassing PPMC
>discussion and consensus building.
>
>If we saw eye to eye on the broad strokes of collaboration but
>differed in the fine details, then I could see letting that work
>itself out as the Podling worked toward graduation. But clearly the
>gulf of expectations was too large in this case. We'll be close
>enough when we are confident that the details can work themselves out
>on the path to graduation. I think we're getting closer. You might
>think we're already there, or we're always been there. That's your
>opinion. Others may share it as well. But if everyone but me thought
>that then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Elephants
>aside, I may be the most obnoxious person speaking these views, but
>I'm far from the only one that thinks working out a common
>understanding now makes sense.
>
>-Rob
>
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Look Simon, while I obviously don't have the time nor
> the inclination to comment on every suggestion made on
> this list, all I've *ever* expected us to do with the
> forums is to just start hosting it on ASF gear. The
> only modifications infra wanted were with respect to
> bringing the codebase up to the latest available
> version(s).
>
> Frontloading this effort with a bunch of social and technical
> red tape servesneither the ASF nor the goals of the Apache
> Way, whichis supposed to involve gradual, evolutionary changes
> toboth communities and to code. Revolutions are not called
> for at this particular juncture; it's hard enough work
> to just move things over (both code-wise and community-wise)
> largely unchanged.
>
Joe, no one is asking for a revolution. In fact I'm suggesting that
the forum volunteers taking their time and think this through
carefully before deciding. Others were urging swift action, that the
forums should be quickly integrated without any discussions at all. I
think that is the more revolutionary approach, bypassing PPMC
discussion and consensus building.
If we saw eye to eye on the broad strokes of collaboration but
differed in the fine details, then I could see letting that work
itself out as the Podling worked toward graduation. But clearly the
gulf of expectations was too large in this case. We'll be close
enough when we are confident that the details can work themselves out
on the path to graduation. I think we're getting closer. You might
think we're already there, or we're always been there. That's your
opinion. Others may share it as well. But if everyone but me thought
that then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Elephants
aside, I may be the most obnoxious person speaking these views, but
I'm far from the only one that thinks working out a common
understanding now makes sense.
-Rob
Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
Look Simon, while I obviously don't have the time nor
the inclination to comment on every suggestion made on
this list, all I've *ever* expected us to do with the
forums is to just start hosting it on ASF gear. The
only modifications infra wanted were with respect to
bringing the codebase up to the latest available
version(s).
Frontloading this effort with a bunch of social and technical
red tape servesneither the ASF nor the goals of the Apache
Way, whichis supposed to involve gradual, evolutionary changes
toboth communities and to code. Revolutions are not called
for at this particular juncture; it's hard enough work
to just move things over (both code-wise and community-wise)
largely unchanged.
>________________________________
>From: Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 7:07 PM
>Subject: [PROPOSAL] Support forums
>
>While this is headed "proposal", it is more a suggestion for a direction to
>explore than a fully-formed proposal on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
>
>Given the AOOo project has not made a code release that needs support, and
>given there is no timeline to one, perhaps the best plan with user-facing
>activities such as the support forums is to leave them functioning as they
>are for now.
>
>I realise this may raise other issues:
>
>1. Use of domain name
>The project could ask legal@ to temporarily grant permission to the Support
>Forums to keep using the domain name until releases have been made at AOOo.
>Even then it's possible that we'll want to continue a "licensing"
>arrangement.
>
>2. Hosting
>In the event Oracle indicates the current hosting will terminate within a
>given window, a third-party host outside Apache can most likely be found to
>offer continuity for the existing software. Or we could proactively identify
>a volunteer hosting arrangement.
>
>3. Oversight
>Plenty of the existing volunteers are participating here. Until there is
>actually a release to support, there's actually no strong and obvious reason
>why this project needs more oversight than that.
>
>In the interests of a compromise that accommodates all interests, I thus
>propose we explore how best to leave things unchanged until we actually have
>a need to change them. Friendly amendments invited :-)
>
>S.
>
>
>