You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by jan i <ja...@apache.org> on 2015/03/07 10:10:39 UTC
community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC
FAQ update
Just realized, that many might jump over the old subject.
This issue is an important issue and should not be hidden behind another
subject.
rgds
jan i.
On 7 March 2015 at 10:03, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 7 March 2015 at 01:55, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On 06/03/2015 Dave Barton wrote:
>> >
>> >> OK! One last attempt to clarify and resolve a trivial issue, that has
>> >> become clouded in misunderstanding and mistranslated into some kind of
>> >> "bike-shedding" subject.
>> >>
>> >
>> > ...and misunderstood (or portrayed) as a transparency issue, when the
>> > answer to your question on who is moderating the API list can readily be
>> > found at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6095 and needed no
>> > further discussion.
>>
>>
>> ... which is of course the first place anyone would think to look! Just
>> needs a "beware of the leopard" sign :-)
>>
>> Seriously, there's a community issue here. Those of us not on the PMC
>> discovered accidentally that apparently harmless updates Kay proposed --
>> and was already implementing -- had been vetoed for undocumented reasons
>> by
>> unknown voices in a secret venue. Doesn't sound like the Apache Way.
>>
>> I believe the continued discussion is because of that and the strong
>> reaction to asking about it, rather than the details of how and why to
>> list
>> the moderators (which to me still seems obvious, uncontroversial, modestly
>> beneficial and best done simply). It begs the question why that reaction
>> happened.
>>
>
> You are opening a very important issue here. This moderator subject was,
> but should never have been discussed in private.
>
> During my first round as PMC, and now in my second round, I can see the
> private@ is being wrongly used (in my opinion, with my PMC hat on) to
> have long discussions which could just as well be public. I am convinced
> that the PMC is NOT doing this on purpose, but simply because they forget.
>
> Without disclosing content here are some interesting numbers:
> private@aoo compared to dev@aoo
> March: 53 on private@, 93 on dev@
> Feb: 347 on private@, 400 on dev@
> Jan: 111 on private@, 542 on dev@
>
> Numbers are taken from the mail archives, and might be off by a couple.
>
> I am a member of several projects and it is fair to say that none of the
> other private lists I follow have a similar relationship. Typically private@
> in the projects I follow count for 5-10% of the mails.
>
> I agree with Simon that we have a community issue here (thanks Simon for
> pointing it out, I had not made the connection between moderators and the
> use of private@)
>
> Some of the PMC are trying to stop the mail flood and remind the PMC group
> to make the thread publicly, but it seems to be something that takes time.
> I for one will do, as I did in the beginning of this thread (and got quite
> flamed for it) disclose my own opinion and as much as I can from private@
> without breaking the rules.
>
> I believe it is high time to discuss this issue openly...and hopefully not
> only contributors but also comitters will raise their voice.
>
> rgds
> jan I.
>
>
> S.
>>
>
>
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS:
PMC FAQ update
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
jan i wrote:
> On Saturday, March 7, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> If you mean the over-use of private@ by the PMC, is there an issue to
>> discuss? Those of us on the PMC need to be attentive to minimizing private@
> Well look at the numbers, I did not publish the numbers for 2014, but you
> will see a high number of mails on private@ so it seems that not all agree
> to keep private@ low.
The sample is skewed due to some recent long conversations that we were
explicitly asked to hold on private@ by a third party that was involved
in these conversations. If you take them out, numbers are much more normal.
That said, yes, at times discussions on private@ should be moved to
dev@; very often they are, as soon as someone points it out; the
solution is simply to patrol private@ for conversations that mistakenly
start there, ask if it has to be private, and move to dev@ otherwise.
> Exactly, the 2 examples you mention are good examples of something that
> should have been public....but did it happen not really, look at the number
> of mails on the 2 issues that alone tell a story.
If a conversation starts on private@ because an ASF officer sends a
message there as he is unaware that an articulated discussion about the
subject is ongoing at dev@ there's little we can do unless we really
enforce moderation of all traffic to private@ (overkill; I prefer that,
like now, we move conversations when suitable; just with a more active
monitoring).
All that considered, remember that private@ is readable to 400+ people,
many of which work for companies that may have different interests than
OpenOffice has; so private@ is not really the small secretive group of
friends that people like to believe it is (and the PMC is not secretive
or a group of friends either, for that matter!)
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS:
PMC FAQ update
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On Sunday, March 8, 2015, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 08/03/2015 Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>>> What about actually doing something?
>>>
>> That, sir, is insulting. If you want to propose a resolution,
>> do so, but please do not attempt to hand out jobs.
>>
>
> Volunteering to do something is much more appreciated than complaining. I
> felt free to remind you and Dave that offering your help is all you need to
> do if you want to manually maintain a list of people. I hope Dave did not
> feel insulted [oops, see below]. Apologies to Simon, but in spite of
> thinking about it for a while, I can't really find a gentler way to tell
> you that if you really want to see something done, offering your help is
> your best option. This is true for minor tasks like maintaining a list of
> moderators as well as for bigger, more significant tasks.
>
> Dave Barton wrote:
>
>> Is such a hostile and insulting attack necessary?
>>
>
> Well, if you felt insulted too, apologies to you too. It is quite clear
> from the context that I meant "doing something [about it]", i.e., about
> that specific web page, not in general. I can't see myself being hostile or
> insulting, but I cannot spend my whole day in explaining sentences.
>
> I do not question that the ASF strives to be open and transparent, but
>> in the area of community building the AOO project is sadly lacking.
>> Comments, such as you have expressed here are, to say the least,
>> discouraging.
>>
>
> I think you got your answers and your points were taken. My comments were
> surely not meant to disturb anyone and I still don't see anything
> inappropriate there, but it can be that native speakers find problematic
> language that was not intentionally put there. I don't think this thread
> has anything useful to say any longer, and as I cannot write without being
> misinterpreted, I'll be happy to move over and remind that I welcome any
> constructive offer for help in any fields.
I agree with Andrea, helping is worth more than just writing words, and I
think it is better to try and read mails with a positive filter. Non-native
speakers will from time to time have wording that native speakers can
twist.....but remember this is not a court house, it is a place with room
for everybody, so please think positive when reading mails.
rgds
jan i
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS:
PMC FAQ update
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 08/03/2015 Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> What about actually doing something?
> That, sir, is insulting. If you want to propose a resolution,
> do so, but please do not attempt to hand out jobs.
Volunteering to do something is much more appreciated than complaining.
I felt free to remind you and Dave that offering your help is all you
need to do if you want to manually maintain a list of people. I hope
Dave did not feel insulted [oops, see below]. Apologies to Simon, but in
spite of thinking about it for a while, I can't really find a gentler
way to tell you that if you really want to see something done, offering
your help is your best option. This is true for minor tasks like
maintaining a list of moderators as well as for bigger, more significant
tasks.
Dave Barton wrote:
> Is such a hostile and insulting attack necessary?
Well, if you felt insulted too, apologies to you too. It is quite clear
from the context that I meant "doing something [about it]", i.e., about
that specific web page, not in general. I can't see myself being hostile
or insulting, but I cannot spend my whole day in explaining sentences.
> I do not question that the ASF strives to be open and transparent, but
> in the area of community building the AOO project is sadly lacking.
> Comments, such as you have expressed here are, to say the least,
> discouraging.
I think you got your answers and your points were taken. My comments
were surely not meant to disturb anyone and I still don't see anything
inappropriate there, but it can be that native speakers find problematic
language that was not intentionally put there. I don't think this thread
has anything useful to say any longer, and as I cannot write without
being misinterpreted, I'll be happy to move over and remind that I
welcome any constructive offer for help in any fields.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS:
PMC FAQ update
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
wrote:
> You are suggesting a usage pattern of the private list that is far beyond
> reality.
>
I am not. I am pointing out there is no way for me to know, and that the
strong reactions to Dave's original (modest & reasonable) question as well
as other follow-ups do nothing to build trust. I believe others here have
already taken that point and I suggest letting it rest now.
> What about actually doing something?
>
That, sir, is insulting.
If you want to propose a resolution, do so, but please do not attempt to
hand out jobs. If the consensus on the list devises an alternative to Kay's
original proposal and work, I may consider volunteering and requesting the
necessary access (which I probably don't have).
S.
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS:
PMC FAQ update
Posted by Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net>.
Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 07/03/2015 Dave Barton wrote:
>> Simon Phipps wrote:
>>> when one does not have access to the privileged
>>> conversations of the PMC, actions that use those conversations as
>>> justification appear hostile, as do dismissive PMC member reactions
>
> Well, if it is true (and it is true) that the private list is visible to
> 400+ people (more than this list's subscribers) and that, while mistakes
> are surely possible and surely have happened, the private list is not
> being abused and discussions that do not belong there are often moved to
> the dev list with full context, then I feel it's important to point it
> out. You are suggesting a usage pattern of the private list that is far
> beyond reality.
>
> Apache OpenOffice is a model of transparency compared to other, even
> open source, projects. The importance some people give to private
> conversations is really, really exaggerated. But if we continue
> discussing this we fall easily in a "conspiracy theory" model, so I
> prefer that we get more concrete. On my behalf, be reassured that when I
> see a private conversation that ought to be public I will point it out.
I have not and as far as I can tell neither has Simon, claimed a general
lack of transparency within the project and I totally reject your
suggestion that I have made any "exaggerated" claims or I am touting
some kind of "conspiracy theory". However, there was a failure of
communication in the original "PMC FAQ update" thread.
>> +100%
>> Thank you Simon.
>
> What about actually doing something?
Is such a hostile and insulting attack necessary?
When I first posted to the original thread I had already collected the
information I thought was being asked for and was ready to "ACTUALLY DO
SOMETHING" by updating the page, if that was acceptable.
> You Simon and Dave combined already
> have all privileges needed to keep the page with moderators' names
> updated if you believe it's really important for you. If you two pledge
> to keep it updated, I, for one, will see my primary reason for removing
> names (i.e., they are blatantly outdated) addressed. If you are willing
> to help, we can surely fix details.
This is no longer about the trivial issue of keeping moderator's names
on a page, or if Simon and I think it is important. The decision on that
matter has been taken and as far as I am concerned it is now closed.
The issue here is that in the original thread both Simon and I asked
totally innocent, non-controversial questions and received answers which
ranged from, the information is already there (if you know where to find
it), to being accused of being on some kind of name publishing ego trip.
I do not question that the ASF strives to be open and transparent, but
in the area of community building the AOO project is sadly lacking.
Comments, such as you have expressed here are, to say the least,
discouraging.
> Regards,
> Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS:
PMC FAQ update
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 07/03/2015 Dave Barton wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>> when one does not have access to the privileged
>> conversations of the PMC, actions that use those conversations as
>> justification appear hostile, as do dismissive PMC member reactions
Well, if it is true (and it is true) that the private list is visible to
400+ people (more than this list's subscribers) and that, while mistakes
are surely possible and surely have happened, the private list is not
being abused and discussions that do not belong there are often moved to
the dev list with full context, then I feel it's important to point it
out. You are suggesting a usage pattern of the private list that is far
beyond reality.
Apache OpenOffice is a model of transparency compared to other, even
open source, projects. The importance some people give to private
conversations is really, really exaggerated. But if we continue
discussing this we fall easily in a "conspiracy theory" model, so I
prefer that we get more concrete. On my behalf, be reassured that when I
see a private conversation that ought to be public I will point it out.
> +100%
> Thank you Simon.
What about actually doing something? You Simon and Dave combined already
have all privileges needed to keep the page with moderators' names
updated if you believe it's really important for you. If you two pledge
to keep it updated, I, for one, will see my primary reason for removing
names (i.e., they are blatantly outdated) addressed. If you are willing
to help, we can surely fix details.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS:
PMC FAQ update
Posted by Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net>.
Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I'll ask one more time. What action is expected here on dev@ to impact
>> how the PMC uses private@ ?
>>
>
> I don't think there is any action that can be taken on dev@ beyond pointing
> out to others here that, when one does not have access to the privileged
> conversations of the PMC, actions that use those conversations as
> justification appear hostile, as do dismissive PMC member reactions when
> simple and reasonable questions are asked about them.
>
> Hopefully, recognising how much harm the resulting atmosphere of mistrust
> does to the project will be remembered. Then PMC members will be heard in
> the future when they ask that private@ conversations be reiterated or
> summarised and then continued on dev@. Note that just continuing
> converstaion is not enough; all dev@ members need to understand the full
> context rather than being belittled for not knowing it.
>
> S.
+100%
Thank you Simon.
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS:
PMC FAQ update
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org>
wrote:
> I'll ask one more time. What action is expected here on dev@ to impact
> how the PMC uses private@ ?
>
I don't think there is any action that can be taken on dev@ beyond pointing
out to others here that, when one does not have access to the privileged
conversations of the PMC, actions that use those conversations as
justification appear hostile, as do dismissive PMC member reactions when
simple and reasonable questions are asked about them.
Hopefully, recognising how much harm the resulting atmosphere of mistrust
does to the project will be remembered. Then PMC members will be heard in
the future when they ask that private@ conversations be reiterated or
summarised and then continued on dev@. Note that just continuing
converstaion is not enough; all dev@ members need to understand the full
context rather than being belittled for not knowing it.
S.
RE: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I'll ask one more time. What action is expected here on dev@ to impact how the PMC uses private@ ?
I can't speak to what the volumes of private@ messages are without knowing what those discussions were. In the cases I have seen since I joined the PMC in February, discussions that should be here have ended up here.
It is not unusual for something that starts legitimately on private@ to advance to something that should be brought to dev@. It perhaps could have started on dev@ but didn't. Once it starts on private@ it sometimes takes a little thrashing around before we catch ourselves and the topic is reframed in a form for dev@ (i.e., without breaking confidences).
There is no way for dev@ subscribers who are not on the PMC to know there are discussions that should be on dev@ yet remain on private@. The PMC has to police itself.
Any one of us can declare here that inappropriate use of private@ is happening, but anyone not on private@ has no means to assess the facts and determine how serious it might be in any particular case.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: jan i [mailto:jani@apache.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2015 10:03
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Subject: Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
On Saturday, March 7, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org>
wrote:
> I am not certain exactly what issue is proposed to be discussed here.
>
> If you mean the over-use of private@ by the PMC, is there an issue to
> discuss? Those of us on the PMC need to be attentive to minimizing private@
> discussions and bring to dev@ every discussion that is not one of the
> special cases requiring discreet usage of private@.
>
> Talking about it here doesn't seem necessary. Who would disagree? Those
> of us with PMC accountability need to make it so. It is expected of all
> PMCs.
Well look at the numbers, I did not publish the numbers for 2014, but you
will see a high number of mails on private@ so it seems that not all agree
to keep private@ low.
[ ... ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS:
PMC FAQ update
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On Saturday, March 7, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org>
wrote:
> I am not certain exactly what issue is proposed to be discussed here.
>
> If you mean the over-use of private@ by the PMC, is there an issue to
> discuss? Those of us on the PMC need to be attentive to minimizing private@
> discussions and bring to dev@ every discussion that is not one of the
> special cases requiring discreet usage of private@.
>
> Talking about it here doesn't seem necessary. Who would disagree? Those
> of us with PMC accountability need to make it so. It is expected of all
> PMCs.
Well look at the numbers, I did not publish the numbers for 2014, but you
will see a high number of mails on private@ so it seems that not all agree
to keep private@ low.
>
> - Dennis
>
> More background, since volumes of private@ usage have been presented.
>
> There are two matters that have been brought here recently although they
> had wandered in and out of private@:
>
> 1. The changes to the PMC FAQ, involving a small comedy of errors (my
> synopsis)
> 2. The concerns about the openoffice.org/why page on the cost of
> compliance
> which also involved the Legal list and some private@ chiding by ASF
> officials
>
> The other major sources of recent volume on private@ involved private
> matters. Sometimes these are resolved entirely without any public
> discussion (e.g., handling a request for or dealing with an issue about
> trademark usage, votes to add new committers and/or PMC members).
If you say so, I will not comment on the content on private@ but merely say
I highly disagree with you...or you have quite a different level of what is
private than I have.
>
> Generally, sometimes there is a privately-raised concern that is discussed
> until it is noticed that it has turned into a discussion that belongs on
> dev@ and not private@. It would be good to catch those earlier. It is
> up to the PMC to be vigilant and execute on those.
Exactly, the 2 examples you mention are good examples of something that
should have been public....but did it happen not really, look at the number
of mails on the 2 issues that alone tell a story.
>
> Anything that involves policies impacting the project itself clearly must
> come to dev@ if there is ever any sort of proposition that involves
> conduct of the project and alignment of the community. A variety of
> privately-raised concerns simply come and go, however, even if there is a
> significant flurry of discussion at first.
>
> There are some routine items that arise from time to time on private@ but
> do not seem to introduce any major spurt in volume.
>
> With regard to the relative silence of other PMCs, I suggest that Apache
> OpenOffice has much greater reach into diverse communities and
> corresponding areas of concern compared to many Apache projects. We are
> not homogenous and we deal with many levels of participation and direction,
> much simply on account of the magnitude of the software, the sites, the
> intended users, and the history. We could be not so driven although I
> expect that would not resonate on dev@, user@, or the forums.
I did not talk about relative silence of PMC, but of committer and
contributors.
rgds
jan i
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jan i [mailto:jani@apache.org <javascript:;>]
> Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2015 01:11
> To: jan i
> Cc: dev
> Subject: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS:
> PMC FAQ update
>
> Just realized, that many might jump over the old subject.
>
> This issue is an important issue and should not be hidden behind another
> subject.
>
> rgds
> jan i.
>
> [ ... ]
> > You are opening a very important issue here. This moderator subject was,
> > but should never have been discussed in private.
> >
> > During my first round as PMC, and now in my second round, I can see the
> > private@ is being wrongly used (in my opinion, with my PMC hat on) to
> > have long discussions which could just as well be public. I am convinced
> > that the PMC is NOT doing this on purpose, but simply because they
> forget.
> >
> > Without disclosing content here are some interesting numbers:
> > private@aoo compared to dev@aoo
> > March: 53 on private@, 93 on dev@
> > Feb: 347 on private@, 400 on dev@
> > Jan: 111 on private@, 542 on dev@
> >
> > Numbers are taken from the mail archives, and might be off by a couple.
> >
> > I am a member of several projects and it is fair to say that none of the
> > other private lists I follow have a similar relationship. Typically
> private@
> > in the projects I follow count for 5-10% of the mails.
> >
> > I agree with Simon that we have a community issue here (thanks Simon for
> > pointing it out, I had not made the connection between moderators and the
> > use of private@)
> >
> > Some of the PMC are trying to stop the mail flood and remind the PMC
> group
> > to make the thread publicly, but it seems to be something that takes
> time.
> > I for one will do, as I did in the beginning of this thread (and got
> quite
> > flamed for it) disclose my own opinion and as much as I can from private@
> > without breaking the rules.
> >
> > I believe it is high time to discuss this issue openly...and hopefully
> not
> > only contributors but also comitters will raise their voice.
> >
> > rgds
> > jan I.
> >
> >
> > S.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
>
>
--
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
RE: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I am not certain exactly what issue is proposed to be discussed here.
If you mean the over-use of private@ by the PMC, is there an issue to discuss? Those of us on the PMC need to be attentive to minimizing private@ discussions and bring to dev@ every discussion that is not one of the special cases requiring discreet usage of private@.
Talking about it here doesn't seem necessary. Who would disagree? Those of us with PMC accountability need to make it so. It is expected of all PMCs.
- Dennis
More background, since volumes of private@ usage have been presented.
There are two matters that have been brought here recently although they had wandered in and out of private@:
1. The changes to the PMC FAQ, involving a small comedy of errors (my synopsis)
2. The concerns about the openoffice.org/why page on the cost of compliance
which also involved the Legal list and some private@ chiding by ASF officials
The other major sources of recent volume on private@ involved private matters. Sometimes these are resolved entirely without any public discussion (e.g., handling a request for or dealing with an issue about trademark usage, votes to add new committers and/or PMC members).
Generally, sometimes there is a privately-raised concern that is discussed until it is noticed that it has turned into a discussion that belongs on dev@ and not private@. It would be good to catch those earlier. It is up to the PMC to be vigilant and execute on those.
Anything that involves policies impacting the project itself clearly must come to dev@ if there is ever any sort of proposition that involves conduct of the project and alignment of the community. A variety of privately-raised concerns simply come and go, however, even if there is a significant flurry of discussion at first.
There are some routine items that arise from time to time on private@ but do not seem to introduce any major spurt in volume.
With regard to the relative silence of other PMCs, I suggest that Apache OpenOffice has much greater reach into diverse communities and corresponding areas of concern compared to many Apache projects. We are not homogenous and we deal with many levels of participation and direction, much simply on account of the magnitude of the software, the sites, the intended users, and the history. We could be not so driven although I expect that would not resonate on dev@, user@, or the forums.
-----Original Message-----
From: jan i [mailto:jani@apache.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2015 01:11
To: jan i
Cc: dev
Subject: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
Just realized, that many might jump over the old subject.
This issue is an important issue and should not be hidden behind another
subject.
rgds
jan i.
[ ... ]
> You are opening a very important issue here. This moderator subject was,
> but should never have been discussed in private.
>
> During my first round as PMC, and now in my second round, I can see the
> private@ is being wrongly used (in my opinion, with my PMC hat on) to
> have long discussions which could just as well be public. I am convinced
> that the PMC is NOT doing this on purpose, but simply because they forget.
>
> Without disclosing content here are some interesting numbers:
> private@aoo compared to dev@aoo
> March: 53 on private@, 93 on dev@
> Feb: 347 on private@, 400 on dev@
> Jan: 111 on private@, 542 on dev@
>
> Numbers are taken from the mail archives, and might be off by a couple.
>
> I am a member of several projects and it is fair to say that none of the
> other private lists I follow have a similar relationship. Typically private@
> in the projects I follow count for 5-10% of the mails.
>
> I agree with Simon that we have a community issue here (thanks Simon for
> pointing it out, I had not made the connection between moderators and the
> use of private@)
>
> Some of the PMC are trying to stop the mail flood and remind the PMC group
> to make the thread publicly, but it seems to be something that takes time.
> I for one will do, as I did in the beginning of this thread (and got quite
> flamed for it) disclose my own opinion and as much as I can from private@
> without breaking the rules.
>
> I believe it is high time to discuss this issue openly...and hopefully not
> only contributors but also comitters will raise their voice.
>
> rgds
> jan I.
>
>
> S.
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org