You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org> on 2012/01/30 17:26:31 UTC
admin permissions on old OOo
Hi all,
I used to have admin permissions on the old site. I no longer seem to.
I receive requests (as does Florian E.) to delete mail mistakenly
posted to the public lists, but I cannot do much about it directly.
I can route to those who *do* have admin permissions on the old site,
if you like. There are other small things to do, too, that require
admin on the Kenai site.
If none of this is needed, good to hear. But the messages are there still.
thanks
Louis
RE: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
For any situations of this kind, it is always appropriate to direct folks to ooo-private @incubator.apache.org when someone has a request for which they want discrete resolution.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Florian Effenberger [mailto:floeff@documentfoundation.org]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 14:04
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Hi,
Dave Fisher wrote on 2012-01-30 22:59:
> TJ has taken up the woman's request. It is still on the Kenai infrastructure and Apache rules don't have to apply. To me this just signals that we need to shutdown the mail system at openoffice.org very, very soon.
thanks for that. Glad to hear its being worked on. I receive such
requests from time to time as well, since I guess I'm still listed at a
dozen places and in public old press releases, and I'd appreciate if I
could just forward those requests to someone.
I did so to Louis this time, since I know him, and I know he wants to
work with AOO, and that's why I felt very uncomfortable seeing the
discussing growing out of this.
Florian
--
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
Chairman of the Board at The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jan 30, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Dave Fisher wrote on 2012-01-30 22:59:
>> TJ has taken up the woman's request. It is still on the Kenai infrastructure and Apache rules don't have to apply. To me this just signals that we need to shutdown the mail system at openoffice.org very, very soon.
>
> thanks for that. Glad to hear its being worked on. I receive such requests from time to time as well, since I guess I'm still listed at a dozen places and in public old press releases, and I'd appreciate if I could just forward those requests to someone.
If the request needs to be private then the place is ooo-private@incubator.apache.org
Otherwise, here is the place.
>
> I did so to Louis this time, since I know him, and I know he wants to work with AOO, and that's why I felt very uncomfortable seeing the discussing growing out of this.
Certainly. Your request nicely draws this to a conclusion, I hope.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Florian
>
> --
> Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
> Chairman of the Board at The Document Foundation
> Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
> Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>.
Hi,
Dave Fisher wrote on 2012-01-30 22:59:
> TJ has taken up the woman's request. It is still on the Kenai infrastructure and Apache rules don't have to apply. To me this just signals that we need to shutdown the mail system at openoffice.org very, very soon.
thanks for that. Glad to hear its being worked on. I receive such
requests from time to time as well, since I guess I'm still listed at a
dozen places and in public old press releases, and I'd appreciate if I
could just forward those requests to someone.
I did so to Louis this time, since I know him, and I know he wants to
work with AOO, and that's why I felt very uncomfortable seeing the
discussing growing out of this.
Florian
--
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
Chairman of the Board at The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jan 30, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> Hello,
>
> since the initial request reached me and I forwarded it to Louis, I feel obliged to comment:
>
> Ross Gardler wrote on 2012-01-30 22:37:
>> Wow - where did that come from? I'm not going to get into a p***ing
>> match with you one of us would make a fool of themselves.
>
> Folks, someone sent his CV to a public mailing list by accident, not knowing it would be public. While I know how annoying and at the same time hopeless deleting archived postings can be - is such a simple request really worth to start endless discussions about where and how to ask that and who is allowed to deal with it? And where's the logic in having her ask in public, when all she wants is not to be mentioned in public?
>
> Stop discussing and help the woman sending in that request, anything else is simply ridiculous and not only a waste of everyone's time, but also an ashaming and embarassing behaviour to the public.
>
> Someone is in an odd situation, and I doubt she wants to deal with politics. Neither do I.
TJ has taken up the woman's request. It is still on the Kenai infrastructure and Apache rules don't have to apply. To me this just signals that we need to shutdown the mail system at openoffice.org very, very soon.
Louis and Ross started discuss something else ... That is all.
Best Regards,
Dave
>
> Speechless,
> Florian
>
> --
> Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
> Chairman of the Board at The Document Foundation
> Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
> Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 30 January 2012 21:49, Florian Effenberger
<fl...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> since the initial request reached me and I forwarded it to Louis, I feel
> obliged to comment:
>
> Ross Gardler wrote on 2012-01-30 22:37:
>
For the record the quoted part was out of context and thus I have removed it.
> Folks, someone sent his CV to a public mailing list by accident, not knowing
> it would be public.
That is the kind of thing that we will usually put the effort into.
Assuming the mailing lists in question are under the ASFs control the
correct policy and process for removal is described at
http://www.apache.org/foundation/public-archives.html
> Stop discussing and help the woman sending in that request, anything else is
> simply ridiculous and not only a waste of everyone's time, but also an
> ashaming and embarassing behaviour to the public.
Precisely my point and why I linked to the ASF policy and process
(repeated above) for handling these events in my first mail. It's just
faster. While removing it from the old OOo site is already being
addressed ( thanks TJ) but since this list is archived at the ASF one
can assume the ASF process should also be followed in this case.
Ross
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>.
Hello,
since the initial request reached me and I forwarded it to Louis, I feel
obliged to comment:
Ross Gardler wrote on 2012-01-30 22:37:
> Wow - where did that come from? I'm not going to get into a p***ing
> match with you one of us would make a fool of themselves.
Folks, someone sent his CV to a public mailing list by accident, not
knowing it would be public. While I know how annoying and at the same
time hopeless deleting archived postings can be - is such a simple
request really worth to start endless discussions about where and how to
ask that and who is allowed to deal with it? And where's the logic in
having her ask in public, when all she wants is not to be mentioned in
public?
Stop discussing and help the woman sending in that request, anything
else is simply ridiculous and not only a waste of everyone's time, but
also an ashaming and embarassing behaviour to the public.
Someone is in an odd situation, and I doubt she wants to deal with
politics. Neither do I.
Speechless,
Florian
--
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
Chairman of the Board at The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 30 January 2012 21:25, Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ross, I've been doing this for >10 years, far longer than you. And I
> have coordinated more online and open source communities, too, I'd
> guess.
Wow - where did that come from? I'm not going to get into a p***ing
match with you one of us would make a fool of themselves.
More importantly, I will repeat my previous apology for any
unintentional offence caused.
Ross
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi Louis,
On Jan 30, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> Ross, I've been doing this for >10 years, far longer than you. And I
> have coordinated more online and open source communities, too, I'd
> guess.
Play nice you are both community organizers ;-)
FWIW Ross is the Apache V.P., Community Development
>
> I do have canned responses, but these no longer apply, given the new
> situation. As it happens, the number of outlier requests has dropped
> precipitously over the last two months, as AOO builds steam. I
> receive, now, very few, and those I do, I quickly route to this proper
> project.
>
> Sorry if I bristled. I accept, of course, advice all the time; even
> from my mother in law, always from my spouse, and even from kind
> strangers :-).
And new friends?
Best Regards,
Dave
>
>
> Louis
>
> On 30 January 2012 16:18, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>> On 30 January 2012 21:04, Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I also do not appreciate your tone and implication that I am falsifying claims.
>>
>>
>> That was not my intention, nor what I said. My point is that you tell
>> us you are receiving trademark requests and other such items, but
>> these never seem to get forwarded to the PPMC. I did not mean to imply
>> you are falsifying these claims, but only indicating that they are
>> only claims if we do not have the the items passed to us. That is I am
>> using the word "claim" as defined at
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claim - which says nothing of
>> falsification.
>>
>> My apologies for any unintentional offence caused.
>>
>> My point is that all such requests should either be forwarded to this
>> list or the poster should be requested to repost it themselves.
>> Personally I have a canned response for just this purpose. I can't
>> deal with the number of personal emails I get relating to various
>> projects. I only meant to provide you with some friendly advice.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>>
>>> I will send to TJ the concerned user's request.
>>> Louis
>>>>
>>>> Personally I would rather see you spending time addressing the issue
>>>> with SPI funds since you are the named individual dealing with the SPI
>>>> (or alternatively indicating that you do not intend to do so, thereby
>>>> making way for someone else to do it).
>>>>
>>>> Ross
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
Ross, I've been doing this for >10 years, far longer than you. And I
have coordinated more online and open source communities, too, I'd
guess.
I do have canned responses, but these no longer apply, given the new
situation. As it happens, the number of outlier requests has dropped
precipitously over the last two months, as AOO builds steam. I
receive, now, very few, and those I do, I quickly route to this proper
project.
Sorry if I bristled. I accept, of course, advice all the time; even
from my mother in law, always from my spouse, and even from kind
strangers :-).
Louis
On 30 January 2012 16:18, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> On 30 January 2012 21:04, Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I also do not appreciate your tone and implication that I am falsifying claims.
>
>
> That was not my intention, nor what I said. My point is that you tell
> us you are receiving trademark requests and other such items, but
> these never seem to get forwarded to the PPMC. I did not mean to imply
> you are falsifying these claims, but only indicating that they are
> only claims if we do not have the the items passed to us. That is I am
> using the word "claim" as defined at
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claim - which says nothing of
> falsification.
>
> My apologies for any unintentional offence caused.
>
> My point is that all such requests should either be forwarded to this
> list or the poster should be requested to repost it themselves.
> Personally I have a canned response for just this purpose. I can't
> deal with the number of personal emails I get relating to various
> projects. I only meant to provide you with some friendly advice.
>
> Ross
>
>>
>> I will send to TJ the concerned user's request.
>> Louis
>>>
>>> Personally I would rather see you spending time addressing the issue
>>> with SPI funds since you are the named individual dealing with the SPI
>>> (or alternatively indicating that you do not intend to do so, thereby
>>> making way for someone else to do it).
>>>
>>> Ross
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 30 January 2012 21:04, Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I also do not appreciate your tone and implication that I am falsifying claims.
That was not my intention, nor what I said. My point is that you tell
us you are receiving trademark requests and other such items, but
these never seem to get forwarded to the PPMC. I did not mean to imply
you are falsifying these claims, but only indicating that they are
only claims if we do not have the the items passed to us. That is I am
using the word "claim" as defined at
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claim - which says nothing of
falsification.
My apologies for any unintentional offence caused.
My point is that all such requests should either be forwarded to this
list or the poster should be requested to repost it themselves.
Personally I have a canned response for just this purpose. I can't
deal with the number of personal emails I get relating to various
projects. I only meant to provide you with some friendly advice.
Ross
>
> I will send to TJ the concerned user's request.
> Louis
>>
>> Personally I would rather see you spending time addressing the issue
>> with SPI funds since you are the named individual dealing with the SPI
>> (or alternatively indicating that you do not intend to do so, thereby
>> making way for someone else to do it).
>>
>> Ross
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
Ross,
On 30 January 2012 15:57, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> On 30 January 2012 19:45, TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> On 1/30/2012 14:22, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> What specific things are being asked of you?
>>>
>>>
>>> To remove a specific email message posted to a public list
>>> (documentation) by mistake.
>>
>>
>> If the message is on one of the two documentation ML's (author or dev
>> @doc.oo.o) I can remove it, or at least the SYMPA page says I can.
>> You or the user can mail me at tjfrazier@openoffice.org, or bring the matter
>> to this list (ooo-dev). I need sender and date.
>
> The ASF has a policy of *not* removing mails in the majority of cases.
> It simply is not possible to do so since our mailing lists are
> archived all over the place. See
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/public-archives.html
>
> ...
>
>>>> Why aren't they being brought to the list (either details, or at least an
>>>> overview of what this work is about)?
>>>
>>>
>>> Because the person wanting the removal, I presume, did not know about
>>> the new changes. I have no problem explaining things--have--but I'm
>>> simply laying out the facts.
>>>>
>
> The point is that you are not a contact point for the AOO project,
> this list is. If you, as a single individual, choose to act on
> requests like these and others that you frequently claim are coming
> your way you will quickly run out of time or you will fail to address
> the requests. Please share everything here (or on the private lists if
> absolutely necessary).
I do not pretend to anyone, least of all you, that I am a contact
person for anything related to AOO. I do not act on requests that I
cannot act on, and do relay to those querying me (and Florian, for
that matter) the facts.
I also do not appreciate your tone and implication that I am falsifying claims.
I will send to TJ the concerned user's request.
Louis
>
> Personally I would rather see you spending time addressing the issue
> with SPI funds since you are the named individual dealing with the SPI
> (or alternatively indicating that you do not intend to do so, thereby
> making way for someone else to do it).
>
> Ross
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
FWIW,
OOo had a policy like ASF's, but I and others honoured exceptions, and
they were exceptions. They were infrequent, and we made it clear that
expunging from the OOo lists was not likely to be a panacea, that once
Pandora's uhm, can, had been opened, the worms were free to wriggle
where they willed.
Louis
On 30 January 2012 18:19, TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> Ross,
> I am not taking this personally, but I /am/ replying personally, below.
>
>
> On 1/30/2012 15:57, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>> On 30 January 2012 19:45, TJ Frazier<tj...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/30/2012 14:22, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>> What specific things are being asked of you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To remove a specific email message posted to a public list
>>>> (documentation) by mistake.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If the message is on one of the two documentation ML's (author or dev
>>> @doc.oo.o) I can remove it, or at least the SYMPA page says I can.
>>> You or the user can mail me at tjfrazier@openoffice.org, or bring the
>>> matter
>>> to this list (ooo-dev). I need sender and date.
>>
>>
>> The ASF has a policy of *not* removing mails in the majority of cases.
>> It simply is not possible to do so since our mailing lists are
>> archived all over the place. See
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/public-archives.html
>>
> Most organizations, like most individuals, have a few suboptimal policies
> (calling them "damn-fool" would be rude, so I won't). The ASF is no
> exception, and this policy is one of them.
>
> AFAICS, the rationales for the policy are:
>
> (1) "Can't do it perfectly." True, but this is the age-old conflict between
> "the good vs. the best", or "improvement vs. perfection". I assert that
> there is no overarching answer to these, hence the decisions must be made at
> a lower level. In this general case, I lean strongly toward "improvement".
> It is the friendly thing to do, and we build community one friend at a time.
> (2) "Publisher of record." Let's not get too full of ourselves, here. If a
> post makes a point in a discussion and prompts replies, or otherwise meets
> some criterion of "general importance", I would argue to keep it. If not,
> and if the user wants it gone, it's toast.
> (3) "Too much work." (a) Frequency: I have moderated two (admittedly not
> very active) lists for about 6 months. This is the first such request I have
> received. YMMV. (b) Level of effort: This user provided a direct link to the
> archived message. It took me one click to get there, maybe 10 seconds to
> confirm that this was the information in question, one click to delete it,
> and a third click to close the browser. This might be harder under ezmlm,
> but that's something for ezmlm moderators to take up with Infra.
> (4) "The user should have known better." True, but don't be snide.
>
> Interestingly enough, despite my rant, my action (I have deleted the post)
> seems to fall within policy!
>
> /tj/
>
>
>> ...
>>
>>>>> Why aren't they being brought to the list (either details, or at least
>>>>> an
>>>>> overview of what this work is about)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because the person wanting the removal, I presume, did not know about
>>>> the new changes. I have no problem explaining things--have--but I'm
>>>> simply laying out the facts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> The point is that you are not a contact point for the AOO project,
>> this list is. If you, as a single individual, choose to act on
>> requests like these and others that you frequently claim are coming
>> your way you will quickly run out of time or you will fail to address
>> the requests. Please share everything here (or on the private lists if
>> absolutely necessary).
>>
>> Personally I would rather see you spending time addressing the issue
>> with SPI funds since you are the named individual dealing with the SPI
>> (or alternatively indicating that you do not intend to do so, thereby
>> making way for someone else to do it).
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>
>
>
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 30 January 2012 23:19, TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
...
>> The ASF has a policy of *not* removing mails in the majority of cases.
>> It simply is not possible to do so since our mailing lists are
>> archived all over the place. See
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/public-archives.html
>>
> Most organizations, like most individuals, have a few suboptimal policies
> (calling them "damn-fool" would be rude, so I won't). The ASF is no
> exception, and this policy is one of them.
That may or may not be true. The policy is set by infra who are
responsible for the management of all the mailing lists at the ASF. So
if the policy is suboptimal it's infra that needs to be addressed.
In this specific case I did not understand that the lists in question
were not ASF managed lists, but were legacy lists. The fact that this
PPMC has control over those lists, of course, means that the PPMC is
able to take action under whatever policy it chooses to apply.
Thank you for resolving the issue.
> Interestingly enough, despite my rant, my action (I have deleted the post)
> seems to fall within policy!
Indeed. The only lesson here then, is that as the old lists are turned
off the infra policy linked will apply. The only way to change that is
for members of the PPMC to become infra volunteers. This policy
disintermediates one step further than the send it to
ooo-private/ooo-dev.
Ross
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
Ross,
I am not taking this personally, but I /am/ replying personally, below.
On 1/30/2012 15:57, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 30 January 2012 19:45, TJ Frazier<tj...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> On 1/30/2012 14:22, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> What specific things are being asked of you?
>>>
>>>
>>> To remove a specific email message posted to a public list
>>> (documentation) by mistake.
>>
>>
>> If the message is on one of the two documentation ML's (author or dev
>> @doc.oo.o) I can remove it, or at least the SYMPA page says I can.
>> You or the user can mail me at tjfrazier@openoffice.org, or bring the matter
>> to this list (ooo-dev). I need sender and date.
>
> The ASF has a policy of *not* removing mails in the majority of cases.
> It simply is not possible to do so since our mailing lists are
> archived all over the place. See
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/public-archives.html
>
Most organizations, like most individuals, have a few suboptimal
policies (calling them "damn-fool" would be rude, so I won't). The ASF
is no exception, and this policy is one of them.
AFAICS, the rationales for the policy are:
(1) "Can't do it perfectly." True, but this is the age-old conflict
between "the good vs. the best", or "improvement vs. perfection". I
assert that there is no overarching answer to these, hence the decisions
must be made at a lower level. In this general case, I lean strongly
toward "improvement". It is the friendly thing to do, and we build
community one friend at a time.
(2) "Publisher of record." Let's not get too full of ourselves, here. If
a post makes a point in a discussion and prompts replies, or otherwise
meets some criterion of "general importance", I would argue to keep it.
If not, and if the user wants it gone, it's toast.
(3) "Too much work." (a) Frequency: I have moderated two (admittedly not
very active) lists for about 6 months. This is the first such request I
have received. YMMV. (b) Level of effort: This user provided a direct
link to the archived message. It took me one click to get there, maybe
10 seconds to confirm that this was the information in question, one
click to delete it, and a third click to close the browser. This might
be harder under ezmlm, but that's something for ezmlm moderators to take
up with Infra.
(4) "The user should have known better." True, but don't be snide.
Interestingly enough, despite my rant, my action (I have deleted the
post) seems to fall within policy!
/tj/
> ...
>
>>>> Why aren't they being brought to the list (either details, or at least an
>>>> overview of what this work is about)?
>>>
>>>
>>> Because the person wanting the removal, I presume, did not know about
>>> the new changes. I have no problem explaining things--have--but I'm
>>> simply laying out the facts.
>>>>
>
> The point is that you are not a contact point for the AOO project,
> this list is. If you, as a single individual, choose to act on
> requests like these and others that you frequently claim are coming
> your way you will quickly run out of time or you will fail to address
> the requests. Please share everything here (or on the private lists if
> absolutely necessary).
>
> Personally I would rather see you spending time addressing the issue
> with SPI funds since you are the named individual dealing with the SPI
> (or alternatively indicating that you do not intend to do so, thereby
> making way for someone else to do it).
>
> Ross
>
>
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 30 January 2012 19:45, TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 14:22, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
...
>>> What specific things are being asked of you?
>>
>>
>> To remove a specific email message posted to a public list
>> (documentation) by mistake.
>
>
> If the message is on one of the two documentation ML's (author or dev
> @doc.oo.o) I can remove it, or at least the SYMPA page says I can.
> You or the user can mail me at tjfrazier@openoffice.org, or bring the matter
> to this list (ooo-dev). I need sender and date.
The ASF has a policy of *not* removing mails in the majority of cases.
It simply is not possible to do so since our mailing lists are
archived all over the place. See
http://www.apache.org/foundation/public-archives.html
...
>>> Why aren't they being brought to the list (either details, or at least an
>>> overview of what this work is about)?
>>
>>
>> Because the person wanting the removal, I presume, did not know about
>> the new changes. I have no problem explaining things--have--but I'm
>> simply laying out the facts.
>>>
The point is that you are not a contact point for the AOO project,
this list is. If you, as a single individual, choose to act on
requests like these and others that you frequently claim are coming
your way you will quickly run out of time or you will fail to address
the requests. Please share everything here (or on the private lists if
absolutely necessary).
Personally I would rather see you spending time addressing the issue
with SPI funds since you are the named individual dealing with the SPI
(or alternatively indicating that you do not intend to do so, thereby
making way for someone else to do it).
Ross
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
On 30 January 2012 14:45, TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> If the message is on one of the two documentation ML's (author or dev
> @doc.oo.o) I can remove it, or at least the SYMPA page says I can.
> You or the user can mail me at tjfrazier@openoffice.org, or bring the matter
> to this list (ooo-dev). I need sender and date.
>
I'll send it to you directly, as that is what the affected user would want.
Louis
> /tj/ (owner + moderator, authors and dev)
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
On 1/30/2012 14:22, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 30 January 2012 14:07, Shane Curcuru<as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2012-01-30 1:37 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30 January 2012 13:35, Dave Fisher<da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I used to have admin permissions on the old site. I no longer seem to.
>>>>> I receive requests (as does Florian E.) to delete mail mistakenly
>>>>> posted to the public lists, but I cannot do much about it directly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can route to those who *do* have admin permissions on the old site,
>>>>> if you like. There are other small things to do, too, that require
>>>>> admin on the Kenai site.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You should be able to get to the old site, but it will be going away.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can easily get to the old site.
>>> The point of my email was that I no longer have admin privileges. I
>>> need them to do the things asked of me.
>>
>>
>> What specific things are being asked of you?
>
> To remove a specific email message posted to a public list
> (documentation) by mistake.
If the message is on one of the two documentation ML's (author or dev
@doc.oo.o) I can remove it, or at least the SYMPA page says I can.
You or the user can mail me at tjfrazier@openoffice.org, or bring the
matter to this list (ooo-dev). I need sender and date.
/tj/ (owner + moderator, authors and dev)
>>
>> Why aren't they being brought to the list (either details, or at least an
>> overview of what this work is about)?
>
> Because the person wanting the removal, I presume, did not know about
> the new changes. I have no problem explaining things--have--but I'm
> simply laying out the facts.
>>
>> What of this work will still need to be done once the old site goes away?
>
> No idea, as not sure what precisely will replace the old. Actually,
> and my apologias, but I have to fill in a lot of gaps in your question
> to arrive at any kind of sense. I think you mean, "Speaking of this
> matter, where you had admin privileges that allowed you to do things
> on behalf of mistaken users, will you, or someone like you, still be
> needing that order of privilege, once we decommission and remove the
> old site? Removal would mean that all queries related to admin tasks
> would have to come to this public list, which required subscription."
>
> The interesting thing, perhaps: Would the old archives holding the
> mistaken mail posts also migrate and if so would they still need ad
> hoc pruning per request? I'd goes two yeas won't make a nay.
>
> louis
>
>>
>> - Shane
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If none of this is needed, good to hear. But the messages are there
>>>>> still.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As soon as we decide to cut it off we will. We thought we needed to keep
>>>> it around for template and extension site login, but that is already broken.
>>>>
>>>> I did find it necessary to go to the Kenai svn to finish the specs
>>>> migration, but that was done by altering my /etc/hosts/.
>>>>
>>>> Is it time to remove the old OOo?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>
>>> louis
>
>
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
Hi
On 30 January 2012 14:07, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 2012-01-30 1:37 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>
>> On 30 January 2012 13:35, Dave Fisher<da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I used to have admin permissions on the old site. I no longer seem to.
>>>> I receive requests (as does Florian E.) to delete mail mistakenly
>>>> posted to the public lists, but I cannot do much about it directly.
>>>>
>>>> I can route to those who *do* have admin permissions on the old site,
>>>> if you like. There are other small things to do, too, that require
>>>> admin on the Kenai site.
>>>
>>>
>>> You should be able to get to the old site, but it will be going away.
>>
>>
>> I can easily get to the old site.
>> The point of my email was that I no longer have admin privileges. I
>> need them to do the things asked of me.
>
>
> What specific things are being asked of you?
To remove a specific email message posted to a public list
(documentation) by mistake.
>
> Why aren't they being brought to the list (either details, or at least an
> overview of what this work is about)?
Because the person wanting the removal, I presume, did not know about
the new changes. I have no problem explaining things--have--but I'm
simply laying out the facts.
>
> What of this work will still need to be done once the old site goes away?
No idea, as not sure what precisely will replace the old. Actually,
and my apologias, but I have to fill in a lot of gaps in your question
to arrive at any kind of sense. I think you mean, "Speaking of this
matter, where you had admin privileges that allowed you to do things
on behalf of mistaken users, will you, or someone like you, still be
needing that order of privilege, once we decommission and remove the
old site? Removal would mean that all queries related to admin tasks
would have to come to this public list, which required subscription."
The interesting thing, perhaps: Would the old archives holding the
mistaken mail posts also migrate and if so would they still need ad
hoc pruning per request? I'd goes two yeas won't make a nay.
louis
>
> - Shane
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If none of this is needed, good to hear. But the messages are there
>>>> still.
>>>
>>>
>>> As soon as we decide to cut it off we will. We thought we needed to keep
>>> it around for template and extension site login, but that is already broken.
>>>
>>> I did find it necessary to go to the Kenai svn to finish the specs
>>> migration, but that was done by altering my /etc/hosts/.
>>>
>>> Is it time to remove the old OOo?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>> louis
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 2012-01-30 1:37 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> On 30 January 2012 13:35, Dave Fisher<da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I used to have admin permissions on the old site. I no longer seem to.
>>> I receive requests (as does Florian E.) to delete mail mistakenly
>>> posted to the public lists, but I cannot do much about it directly.
>>>
>>> I can route to those who *do* have admin permissions on the old site,
>>> if you like. There are other small things to do, too, that require
>>> admin on the Kenai site.
>>
>> You should be able to get to the old site, but it will be going away.
>
> I can easily get to the old site.
> The point of my email was that I no longer have admin privileges. I
> need them to do the things asked of me.
What specific things are being asked of you?
Why aren't they being brought to the list (either details, or at least
an overview of what this work is about)?
What of this work will still need to be done once the old site goes away?
- Shane
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> If none of this is needed, good to hear. But the messages are there still.
>>
>> As soon as we decide to cut it off we will. We thought we needed to keep it around for template and extension site login, but that is already broken.
>>
>> I did find it necessary to go to the Kenai svn to finish the specs migration, but that was done by altering my /etc/hosts/.
>>
>> Is it time to remove the old OOo?
>
> Yes.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>
> louis
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
On 30 January 2012 13:35, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I used to have admin permissions on the old site. I no longer seem to.
>> I receive requests (as does Florian E.) to delete mail mistakenly
>> posted to the public lists, but I cannot do much about it directly.
>>
>> I can route to those who *do* have admin permissions on the old site,
>> if you like. There are other small things to do, too, that require
>> admin on the Kenai site.
>
> You should be able to get to the old site, but it will be going away.
I can easily get to the old site.
The point of my email was that I no longer have admin privileges. I
need them to do the things asked of me.
>
>>
>> If none of this is needed, good to hear. But the messages are there still.
>
> As soon as we decide to cut it off we will. We thought we needed to keep it around for template and extension site login, but that is already broken.
>
> I did find it necessary to go to the Kenai svn to finish the specs migration, but that was done by altering my /etc/hosts/.
>
> Is it time to remove the old OOo?
Yes.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
louis
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 1, 2012 3:40 AM, "Louis Suárez-Potts" <ls...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
...
>
> I am *not* saying we ought to do the same thing here. Quite the
> opposite. I have maintained that it's best to focus on development and
> contribution here and to have a proper focus users elsewhere, though
> "elsewhere" could easily be within the generous embrace of Apache.
>
> louis
+1
That's how ASF projects work and it's how a broad range of contributors get
paid for their work. It's useful to know that you feel this would be a
better model for AOO given the lessons from history in OOo.
There is always the user list for those users who fall in-between supported
users and active contributors, thatis those who are happy with a self-help
community.
Ross
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
On 31 January 2012 21:25, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 30/01/2012 Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> Is it time to remove the old OOo?
>
>
> Not without proper notice. At least, there are still active mailing lists
> there and the corresponding moderation web panels under
> http://openoffice.org still work.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
Oh, dumb me. I should mention, on this thread, that one reason why OOo
had relatively many posters mis-posting messages and so on was because
unlike a lot of other foss projects then--less so now--it was
amphibolic user/develoeper, and that did not usually work out so well
for those users wanting nothing more than the application.
This meant then that so many of the rules that govern a developer site
were bent to accommodate regular users who were not by any means
developers or even contributors-and who had no clue, even after
reading the warnings, of what it meant to send an email message to a
list.
I am *not* saying we ought to do the same thing here. Quite the
opposite. I have maintained that it's best to focus on development and
contribution here and to have a proper focus users elsewhere, though
"elsewhere" could easily be within the generous embrace of Apache.
louis
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 30/01/2012 Dave Fisher wrote:
> Is it time to remove the old OOo?
Not without proper notice. At least, there are still active mailing
lists there and the corresponding moderation web panels under
http://openoffice.org still work.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jan 30, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I used to have admin permissions on the old site. I no longer seem to.
> I receive requests (as does Florian E.) to delete mail mistakenly
> posted to the public lists, but I cannot do much about it directly.
>
> I can route to those who *do* have admin permissions on the old site,
> if you like. There are other small things to do, too, that require
> admin on the Kenai site.
You should be able to get to the old site, but it will be going away.
>
> If none of this is needed, good to hear. But the messages are there still.
As soon as we decide to cut it off we will. We thought we needed to keep it around for template and extension site login, but that is already broken.
I did find it necessary to go to the Kenai svn to finish the specs migration, but that was done by altering my /etc/hosts/.
Is it time to remove the old OOo?
Regards,
Dave
>
> thanks
> Louis
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
On 30 January 2012 17:24, Florian Effenberger
<fl...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Rob Weir wrote on 2012-01-30 23:23:
>
>> 2) If the question is sensitive, personal, confidential, etc.., then
>> ask them to send it to the ooo-private list. Again, they do not need
>> to subscribe. Anyone can post.
>
>
> that's a clear answer - thanks for that. Will point future requests to this
> list then.
Likewise.
BTW, a lot of this hubbub was the product of mistimed emails. Were we
all using IM or Twitter or something like, this tempest in a teacup
would not have occurred.
-louis
>
>
> Florian
>
> --
> Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
> Chairman of the Board at The Document Foundation
> Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
> Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>.
Hi,
Rob Weir wrote on 2012-01-30 23:23:
> 2) If the question is sensitive, personal, confidential, etc.., then
> ask them to send it to the ooo-private list. Again, they do not need
> to subscribe. Anyone can post.
that's a clear answer - thanks for that. Will point future requests to
this list then.
Florian
--
Florian Effenberger <fl...@documentfoundation.org>
Chairman of the Board at The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff
Re: admin permissions on old OOo
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I used to have admin permissions on the old site. I no longer seem to.
> I receive requests (as does Florian E.) to delete mail mistakenly
> posted to the public lists, but I cannot do much about it directly.
>
> I can route to those who *do* have admin permissions on the old site,
> if you like. There are other small things to do, too, that require
> admin on the Kenai site.
>
> If none of this is needed, good to hear. But the messages are there still.
>
One of my favorite words applies here: "disintermediation". The
best thing we can do is to remove extra steps and layers and people
between the user and the person who can give the user what they want.
General rule that applies for everything from trademark requests, to
mailing list, to product questions, to project questions, to interview
requests, to almost anything:
1) If it is not too sensitive and the person does not mind making the
request in public, then ask them to send the request to the ooo-dev
list. Note that it is not necessary for them to subscribe to the
list. Anyone is able to post to it.
2) If the question is sensitive, personal, confidential, etc.., then
ask them to send it to the ooo-private list. Again, they do not need
to subscribe. Anyone can post.
There may be more specific ways to report specific issues, but the
above two paths almost always work as a good first step.
Regards,
-Rob
> thanks
> Louis