You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net> on 2015/03/05 11:27:47 UTC
Re: PMC FAQ update
Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>
> On 02/23/2015 02:17 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website.
>>>
>>> Please let us know if there are further changes to the persons listed as
>>> e-mail moderators, wiki admins, or anything else.
>>>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure there are others - I moderate users@ and marketing@ daily
>> for example.
>
> Thanks for the response. I will add you as a moderator for users and
> marketing.
I see this page has now been updated and the names of all the list
moderators have been removed. Is there some new (unlinked) location
where that information can be found? If not, should we add the moderator
names to the individual list information on the mailing lists page:
https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html ?
> Or is that page only supposed to list PMC members in those
>> roles?
>>
>> S.
>
> I think "originally" only PMC members were in these roles, and that is
> why the wording might is a bit odd. But, things have changed in this
> regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 07/03/2015 jan i wrote:
> On 7 March 2015 at 01:55, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> 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!
Well, I simply opened the list archives at
http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.ooo-dev then
searched for "api list moderators" and clicked on the first (oldest)
result. This is very easy.
>> 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.
Very exaggerated tones. Just go back to see that Kay posted the first
message (and this was a mistake, promptly rectified) to both the dev and
private list. People answered where they happened to read the message
first. By the way, I had suggested on this list to remove the names (for
no other reasons that the list is simply unmaintainable as it is now,
and an outdated list serves no purpose). There were no vetoes or any
other bad or secret behavior. Simply, the issue is very minor, regarded
by almost everybody as minor and it's better to go for the most
maintainable solution. I proposed an approach that still allows to see
the moderators' names in real time, while not imposing to us the burden
to update a static web page every time a change is done. The Apache Way
is always honored at OpenOffice.
>> It begs the question why that reaction happened.
I for sure would have dismissed the issue saying that it is useless work
to maintain a separate list. And nothing else.
> 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.
That is a sane approach to the issue. Yes, I will answer to the thread
wherever it is. This particular discussion was for no reason sent to
both dev and private and I replied to it here and there.
> 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@
I'll answer this in the new thread, but people who are always assuming
we have fantastic secrets to discuss on the private list would be very
amused (except conspiracy theorists, who would be disappointed) if they
saw the real messages!
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
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: PMC FAQ update
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
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.
S.
Re: PMC FAQ update
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
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.
> The one and only thing I suggested is that we have a simple, easy way
> for any of us to check & ensure that we have adequate list moderator
> coverage.
- List the mailing lists.
- Mention the -owner address for each.
- Add a link to the JIRA issue with the moderators names (like above).
That issue will be reopened if we need to change moderators. So this
will cause no overhead and require no maintenance at all.
This would be a perfect solution if INFRA had not asked us to use an
internal tool rather than JIRA for mailing list requests. So in future
the moderator names might be in some commits that might not be visible
to everybody, but they will still be visible to all committers or so, so
not really exclusive...
BTW, to me the information "Who are the moderators of the XYZ mailing
list?" is public but largely irrelevant. I e-mail the -owner addresses
when needed and I'm OK with it.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 6 March 2015 at 18:09, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org>
wrote:
> -- replying below to --
> From: jan i [mailto:jani@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2015 06:03
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: PMC FAQ update
>
> On 6 March 2015 at 14:36, Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net> 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.
> >
> > It is _NOT_ about anyone WANTING to be recognised, or having their name
> > listed somewhere.
> >
> > It is _NOT_ about limiting the number of moderators and there is no need
> > for any existing moderators to step back.
> >
> > There is _NO_ need to show moderators email addresses, the list owner
> > address works perfectly well.
> >
> > It is _NOT_ important where the information is made available.
> >
> > The one and only thing I suggested is that we have a simple, easy way
> > for any of us to check & ensure that we have adequate list moderator
> > coverage.
> >
> if that is the only purpose, then it is a lot easier to look at the mail
> list configuration files, which are available to any infrastructure or
> infra-interest committer of which there are plenty in this project.
>
> All that needs to be done is whenever somebody stops being a moderator
> (which happens with a jira ticket) check it there are still sufficient
> moderators.
>
> So for that purpose we really do not need an extra list.
>
> <orcmid>
> I say the purpose is for transparency and sustainability in a way that
> these arrangements are visible to our public and interested parties
> without depending on membership in or ceremonies of any priesthood.
> The effort involved in maintenance is out of a commitment to
> provide that without requiring tacit knowledge of infrastructure
> operations or anything else.
> Of course, it would be handy to have documentation on how one adds
> and removes administrators of this kind where newcomers could find it.
> That would be much more involved and it is not being asked for.
> </orcmid>
>
The documentation you look for is standard apache documentation....the
short version is make a jira to infra.
rgds
jan i.
>
> [ ... ]
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
RE: PMC FAQ update
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
-- replying below to --
From: jan i [mailto:jani@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2015 06:03
To: dev
Subject: Re: PMC FAQ update
On 6 March 2015 at 14:36, Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net> 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.
>
> It is _NOT_ about anyone WANTING to be recognised, or having their name
> listed somewhere.
>
> It is _NOT_ about limiting the number of moderators and there is no need
> for any existing moderators to step back.
>
> There is _NO_ need to show moderators email addresses, the list owner
> address works perfectly well.
>
> It is _NOT_ important where the information is made available.
>
> The one and only thing I suggested is that we have a simple, easy way
> for any of us to check & ensure that we have adequate list moderator
> coverage.
>
if that is the only purpose, then it is a lot easier to look at the mail
list configuration files, which are available to any infrastructure or
infra-interest committer of which there are plenty in this project.
All that needs to be done is whenever somebody stops being a moderator
(which happens with a jira ticket) check it there are still sufficient
moderators.
So for that purpose we really do not need an extra list.
<orcmid>
I say the purpose is for transparency and sustainability in a way that
these arrangements are visible to our public and interested parties
without depending on membership in or ceremonies of any priesthood.
The effort involved in maintenance is out of a commitment to
provide that without requiring tacit knowledge of infrastructure
operations or anything else.
Of course, it would be handy to have documentation on how one adds
and removes administrators of this kind where newcomers could find it.
That would be much more involved and it is not being asked for.
</orcmid>
[ ... ]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 6 March 2015 at 14:36, Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net> wrote:
> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> > On 05/03/15 15:04, Louis Su�rez-Potts wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 05-03-2015, at 06:49, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:03 AM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 5 March 2015 at 11:42, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk <
> kay.schenk@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I see this page has now been updated and the names of all the list
> >>>>>> moderators have been removed. Is there some new (unlinked) location
> >>>>>> where that information can be found? If not, should we add the
> >>>> moderator
> >>>>>> names to the individual list information on the mailing lists page:
> >>>>>> https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I also note that the [commit for this change][1] refers to a
> discussion
> >>>> of
> >>>>> the rationale for the change - can anyone point me to the discussion
> >>>>> please?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Some of that discussion happened (partly wrongly) on private@
> >>>>
> >>>> Basically some of us (including myself) does not want to have our
> names
> >>>> published where it is not really needed or beneficial.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Obviously I wasn't party to the private discussion, but that seems an
> odd
> >>> decision in a community that's so transparent in its intent an
> >>> implementation. I suggest the lists of moderators be made available
> >>> somewhere because:
> >>>
> >>> - The identities of the list moderators seem very hard to determine
> by
> >>> any other means
> >>> - This mode of contribution gets little enough recognition as it is,
> and
> >>> the people contributing this way should be recognised.
> >>>
> >>> Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish
> the
> >>>> individual names.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> There is a private@ list but we still publish the names of the PMC
> >>> members...
> >>>
> >>> S.
> >>
> >> I agree with Simon.
> >>
> >> -louis
> >>
> >
> > I agree that contributions should be recognized but moderator of mailing
> > lists is of course a low burner. Keeping the info up-to-date requires
> > more work and the benefit is really low.
> >
> > If somebody want his name listed we can of course do that, I think it is
> > not important here and real contributors have their stage somewhere else.
> >
> > But who knows finding 100 more moderator is potentially easier than
> > finding 100 new developers and we can shine with 100 new contributors.
> > If we have a limit per list I step back as moderator ;-)
> >
> > Juergen (still smiling)
>
> 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.
>
> It is _NOT_ about anyone WANTING to be recognised, or having their name
> listed somewhere.
>
> It is _NOT_ about limiting the number of moderators and there is no need
> for any existing moderators to step back.
>
> There is _NO_ need to show moderators email addresses, the list owner
> address works perfectly well.
>
> It is _NOT_ important where the information is made available.
>
> The one and only thing I suggested is that we have a simple, easy way
> for any of us to check & ensure that we have adequate list moderator
> coverage.
>
if that is the only purpose, then it is a lot easier to look at the mail
list configuration files, which are available to any infrastructure or
infra-interest committer of which there are plenty in this project.
All that needs to be done is whenever somebody stops being a moderator
(which happens with a jira ticket) check it there are still sufficient
moderators.
So for that purpose we really do not need an extra list.
rgds
jan i.
>
> Maintenance of the information is trivial:
> 1. A new moderator is authorised and at the same time his name is added
> to the page.
> 2. An existing moderator opts-out of the responsibility and at the same
> time his name is removed from the page.
>
> Dave (a bit frustrated, but still smiling)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: PMC FAQ update
Posted by Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net>.
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 05/03/15 15:04, Louis Su�rez-Potts wrote:
>>
>>> On 05-03-2015, at 06:49, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:03 AM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5 March 2015 at 11:42, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see this page has now been updated and the names of all the list
>>>>>> moderators have been removed. Is there some new (unlinked) location
>>>>>> where that information can be found? If not, should we add the
>>>> moderator
>>>>>> names to the individual list information on the mailing lists page:
>>>>>> https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also note that the [commit for this change][1] refers to a discussion
>>>> of
>>>>> the rationale for the change - can anyone point me to the discussion
>>>>> please?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some of that discussion happened (partly wrongly) on private@
>>>>
>>>> Basically some of us (including myself) does not want to have our names
>>>> published where it is not really needed or beneficial.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously I wasn't party to the private discussion, but that seems an odd
>>> decision in a community that's so transparent in its intent an
>>> implementation. I suggest the lists of moderators be made available
>>> somewhere because:
>>>
>>> - The identities of the list moderators seem very hard to determine by
>>> any other means
>>> - This mode of contribution gets little enough recognition as it is, and
>>> the people contributing this way should be recognised.
>>>
>>> Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish the
>>>> individual names.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is a private@ list but we still publish the names of the PMC
>>> members...
>>>
>>> S.
>>
>> I agree with Simon.
>>
>> -louis
>>
>
> I agree that contributions should be recognized but moderator of mailing
> lists is of course a low burner. Keeping the info up-to-date requires
> more work and the benefit is really low.
>
> If somebody want his name listed we can of course do that, I think it is
> not important here and real contributors have their stage somewhere else.
>
> But who knows finding 100 more moderator is potentially easier than
> finding 100 new developers and we can shine with 100 new contributors.
> If we have a limit per list I step back as moderator ;-)
>
> Juergen (still smiling)
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.
It is _NOT_ about anyone WANTING to be recognised, or having their name
listed somewhere.
It is _NOT_ about limiting the number of moderators and there is no need
for any existing moderators to step back.
There is _NO_ need to show moderators email addresses, the list owner
address works perfectly well.
It is _NOT_ important where the information is made available.
The one and only thing I suggested is that we have a simple, easy way
for any of us to check & ensure that we have adequate list moderator
coverage.
Maintenance of the information is trivial:
1. A new moderator is authorised and at the same time his name is added
to the page.
2. An existing moderator opts-out of the responsibility and at the same
time his name is removed from the page.
Dave (a bit frustrated, but still smiling)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 05/03/15 15:04, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
>> On 05-03-2015, at 06:49, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:03 AM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 March 2015 at 11:42, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see this page has now been updated and the names of all the list
>>>>> moderators have been removed. Is there some new (unlinked) location
>>>>> where that information can be found? If not, should we add the
>>> moderator
>>>>> names to the individual list information on the mailing lists page:
>>>>> https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also note that the [commit for this change][1] refers to a discussion
>>> of
>>>> the rationale for the change - can anyone point me to the discussion
>>>> please?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some of that discussion happened (partly wrongly) on private@
>>>
>>> Basically some of us (including myself) does not want to have our names
>>> published where it is not really needed or beneficial.
>>>
>>
>> Obviously I wasn't party to the private discussion, but that seems an odd
>> decision in a community that's so transparent in its intent an
>> implementation. I suggest the lists of moderators be made available
>> somewhere because:
>>
>> - The identities of the list moderators seem very hard to determine by
>> any other means
>> - This mode of contribution gets little enough recognition as it is, and
>> the people contributing this way should be recognised.
>>
>> Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish the
>>> individual names.
>>>
>>
>> There is a private@ list but we still publish the names of the PMC
>> members...
>>
>> S.
>
> I agree with Simon.
>
> -louis
>
I agree that contributions should be recognized but moderator of mailing
lists is of course a low burner. Keeping the info up-to-date requires
more work and the benefit is really low.
If somebody want his name listed we can of course do that, I think it is
not important here and real contributors have their stage somewhere else.
But who knows finding 100 more moderator is potentially easier than
finding 100 new developers and we can shine with 100 new contributors.
If we have a limit per list I step back as moderator ;-)
Juergen (still smiling)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <lu...@gmail.com>.
> On 05-03-2015, at 06:49, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:03 AM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 5 March 2015 at 11:42, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website.
>>>>
>>>> I see this page has now been updated and the names of all the list
>>>> moderators have been removed. Is there some new (unlinked) location
>>>> where that information can be found? If not, should we add the
>> moderator
>>>> names to the individual list information on the mailing lists page:
>>>> https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html ?
>>>
>>>
>>> I also note that the [commit for this change][1] refers to a discussion
>> of
>>> the rationale for the change - can anyone point me to the discussion
>>> please?
>>>
>>
>> Some of that discussion happened (partly wrongly) on private@
>>
>> Basically some of us (including myself) does not want to have our names
>> published where it is not really needed or beneficial.
>>
>
> Obviously I wasn't party to the private discussion, but that seems an odd
> decision in a community that's so transparent in its intent an
> implementation. I suggest the lists of moderators be made available
> somewhere because:
>
> - The identities of the list moderators seem very hard to determine by
> any other means
> - This mode of contribution gets little enough recognition as it is, and
> the people contributing this way should be recognised.
>
> Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish the
>> individual names.
>>
>
> There is a private@ list but we still publish the names of the PMC
> members...
>
> S.
I agree with Simon.
-louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:03 AM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 5 March 2015 at 11:42, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website.
> > >
> > > I see this page has now been updated and the names of all the list
> > > moderators have been removed. Is there some new (unlinked) location
> > > where that information can be found? If not, should we add the
> moderator
> > > names to the individual list information on the mailing lists page:
> > > https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html ?
> >
> >
> > I also note that the [commit for this change][1] refers to a discussion
> of
> > the rationale for the change - can anyone point me to the discussion
> > please?
> >
>
> Some of that discussion happened (partly wrongly) on private@
>
> Basically some of us (including myself) does not want to have our names
> published where it is not really needed or beneficial.
>
Obviously I wasn't party to the private discussion, but that seems an odd
decision in a community that's so transparent in its intent an
implementation. I suggest the lists of moderators be made available
somewhere because:
- The identities of the list moderators seem very hard to determine by
any other means
- This mode of contribution gets little enough recognition as it is, and
the people contributing this way should be recognised.
Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish the
> individual names.
>
There is a private@ list but we still publish the names of the PMC
members...
S.
Re: PMC FAQ update
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On Thursday, March 5, 2015, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 03/05/2015 10:26 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > I am aligned with Simon and Louis on this.
> >
> > Part of the reason for knowing who moderators and administrators are
> > is for transparency. Civil names (sometimes pseudonyms, such as
> > RGB-ES) could be used, although (optional?) Apache IDs are very handy
> > too.
> >
> > Another reason is so if someone goes missing or there is some sort of
> > turnover, it is possible to easily determine that replacements or
> > additions are required in order to have adequate coverage. That is
> > related to sustainability. One cannot address sustainability if it
> > is unknown who the incumbents are and where it is useful to add/train
> > additional contributors.
> >
> > It is not necessary to supply email addresses, which is apparently
> > the main concern, especially because some folks use private email
> > addresses that are not widely-published for some mailings. (Those
> > who have an Apache ID often do not use the corresponding email
> > address, even on private lists, and it always makes determination of
> > binding votes all the more tricky.)
> >
> > Knowing who is on the PMC and who is the Chair is a different matter
> > and that is easily found, just as it is easy to determine who are the
> > committers on Apache OpenOffice. In all of these cases, the Apache
> > ID is easy to determine even if it is not listed.
> >
> > I fail to understand why anonymity is important for any of these list
> > administration roles, even for private@ and security@. From my
> > perspective, visibility comes with taking on those duties, especially
> > since there is unusual karma involved. And having it recorded in a
> > public page that is kept current goes with the importance of having
> > the information current and readily available.
> >
> > I definitely agree this is a conversation for dev@.
> >
> > - Dennis
>
> It seems our changes to make the PMC FAQ page make more sense had some
> unintended, and based on this thread, some undesirable consequences.
> Maybe some solutions for this--
I agree that we need to keep the information public but also voluntary.
The world need to be able to reach our moderators, that is the reason for
owner@. Being a moderator does not mean you want to be on a public list,
that is and should be a personal decision.
With 2) you elegantly solve both.
>
> [1] Put moderators on the Project mailing list page.
It seems harder to change
> [2] Add a new cwiki page under Directory of Volunteers listing mailing
> list moderators (easier to change but that could be a problem)
I favor this, we add the different mailing lists, with owner@ and ask
moderators to add themself, just like we do with other listings.
If you decide to do 1 or 2 and also add the names/emails of the moderators
please make sure you have the consent of the people before adding them.
rgds
jan i
>
> Other suggestions?
>
>
> >
> > -----Original Message----- From: jan i [mailto:jani@apache.org
> <javascript:;>] Sent:
> > Thursday, March 5, 2015 07:39 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;> Subject:
> > Re: PMC FAQ update
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > If people want to tell the world what they do in such detail, they
> > should publish it, we should not publish peoples names without the
> > consent of the people.
> >
> > My concern is not so much having the list of names, but more that it
> > is forced to participate. If people added themself to the list it
> > would be ok because it would be their own choice.
> >
> > rgds jan i
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> >
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "An old horse for a long, hard road,
> a young pony for a quick ride."
> -- Texas Bix Bender
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: PMC FAQ update
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 03/05/2015 10:26 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I am aligned with Simon and Louis on this.
>
> Part of the reason for knowing who moderators and administrators are
> is for transparency. Civil names (sometimes pseudonyms, such as
> RGB-ES) could be used, although (optional?) Apache IDs are very handy
> too.
>
> Another reason is so if someone goes missing or there is some sort of
> turnover, it is possible to easily determine that replacements or
> additions are required in order to have adequate coverage. That is
> related to sustainability. One cannot address sustainability if it
> is unknown who the incumbents are and where it is useful to add/train
> additional contributors.
>
> It is not necessary to supply email addresses, which is apparently
> the main concern, especially because some folks use private email
> addresses that are not widely-published for some mailings. (Those
> who have an Apache ID often do not use the corresponding email
> address, even on private lists, and it always makes determination of
> binding votes all the more tricky.)
>
> Knowing who is on the PMC and who is the Chair is a different matter
> and that is easily found, just as it is easy to determine who are the
> committers on Apache OpenOffice. In all of these cases, the Apache
> ID is easy to determine even if it is not listed.
>
> I fail to understand why anonymity is important for any of these list
> administration roles, even for private@ and security@. From my
> perspective, visibility comes with taking on those duties, especially
> since there is unusual karma involved. And having it recorded in a
> public page that is kept current goes with the importance of having
> the information current and readily available.
>
> I definitely agree this is a conversation for dev@.
>
> - Dennis
It seems our changes to make the PMC FAQ page make more sense had some
unintended, and based on this thread, some undesirable consequences.
Maybe some solutions for this--
[1] Put moderators on the Project mailing list page.
[2] Add a new cwiki page under Directory of Volunteers listing mailing
list moderators (easier to change but that could be a problem)
Other suggestions?
>
> -----Original Message----- From: jan i [mailto:jani@apache.org] Sent:
> Thursday, March 5, 2015 07:39 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject:
> Re: PMC FAQ update
>
> [ ... ]
>
> If people want to tell the world what they do in such detail, they
> should publish it, we should not publish peoples names without the
> consent of the people.
>
> My concern is not so much having the list of names, but more that it
> is forced to participate. If people added themself to the list it
> would be ok because it would be their own choice.
>
> rgds jan i
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"An old horse for a long, hard road,
a young pony for a quick ride."
-- Texas Bix Bender
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: PMC FAQ update
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I am aligned with Simon and Louis on this.
Part of the reason for knowing who moderators and administrators are is for transparency. Civil names (sometimes pseudonyms, such as RGB-ES) could be used, although (optional?) Apache IDs are very handy too.
Another reason is so if someone goes missing or there is some sort of turnover, it is possible to easily determine that replacements or additions are required in order to have adequate coverage. That is related to sustainability. One cannot address sustainability if it is unknown who the incumbents are and where it is useful to add/train additional contributors.
It is not necessary to supply email addresses, which is apparently the main concern, especially because some folks use private email addresses that are not widely-published for some mailings. (Those who have an Apache ID often do not use the corresponding email address, even on private lists, and it always makes determination of binding votes all the more tricky.)
Knowing who is on the PMC and who is the Chair is a different matter and that is easily found, just as it is easy to determine who are the committers on Apache OpenOffice. In all of these cases, the Apache ID is easy to determine even if it is not listed.
I fail to understand why anonymity is important for any of these list administration roles, even for private@ and security@. From my perspective, visibility comes with taking on those duties, especially since there is unusual karma involved. And having it recorded in a public page that is kept current goes with the importance of having the information current and readily available.
I definitely agree this is a conversation for dev@.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: jan i [mailto:jani@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2015 07:39
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: PMC FAQ update
[ ... ]
If people want to tell the world what they do in such detail, they should
publish it, we should not publish peoples names without the consent of the
people.
My concern is not so much having the list of names, but more that it is
forced to participate. If people added themself to the list it would be ok
because it would be their own choice.
rgds
jan i
[ ... ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On Thursday, March 5, 2015, Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net> wrote:
> jan i wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 5, 2015, Dave Barton <db@tasit.net <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> >> jan i wrote:
> >>> On 5 March 2015 at 11:42, Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com
> <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Dave Barton <db@tasit.net
> <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I see this page has now been updated and the names of all the list
> >>>>> moderators have been removed. Is there some new (unlinked) location
> >>>>> where that information can be found? If not, should we add the
> >> moderator
> >>>>> names to the individual list information on the mailing lists page:
> >>>>> https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html ?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I also note that the [commit for this change][1] refers to a
> discussion
> >> of
> >>>> the rationale for the change - can anyone point me to the discussion
> >>>> please?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Some of that discussion happened (partly wrongly) on private@
> >>>
> >>> Basically some of us (including myself) does not want to have our names
> >>> published where it is not really needed or beneficial.
> >>>
> >>> Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish
> the
> >>> individual names.
> >>>
> >>> rgds
> >>> jan i.
> >>
> >> With the exception of a couple of pseudonyms (real names known
> >> internally), every Apache committer's name is published:
> >> https://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
> >
> > yeah but that does not tell which mailing lists we listen in on and a lot
> > of other things we do, it does e,g. not tell that I am AOO Chair.
>
> Rubbish! Another public page:
> https://people.apache.org/committer-index.html#jani
> Clearly and unequivocally states:
> <Q> jani Jan Iversen corinthia, incubator, incubator-pmc,
> infrastructure, infrastructure-interest, labs, labs-pmc, member,
> openoffice, openoffice-pmc, pmc-chairs, tac-pmc </Q>
>
> See also:
> https://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#pmc-chairs
>
> Sorry, but I don't get your point about "which mailing lists we listen
> in on and a lot of other things we do". Who cares, but you make it
> sounds like you have something to hide. Also, who are "we" in this
> context, PMC members, project members, or everybody?
>
> >>
> >> Our "Mailing List" page states:
> >> <Q> Each mailing list at OpenOffice has at least two human
> moderators.</Q>
> >>
> >> Without referring to "private" information you or the PMC may hold tell
> >> me (off-list if you wish) who the TWO moderators are for the API mailing
> >> list?
> >>
> >> Are we ashamed of who we are and what we do?
> >
> > no way, but this is simply an information that has no relevance in my
> > opinion.
> >
> > If people want to tell the world what they do in such detail, they should
> > publish it, we should not publish peoples names without the consent of
> the
> > people.
>
> It was published for years, so why now do we have something to hide?
>
> > My concern is not so much having the list of names, but more that it is
> > forced to participate. If people added themself to the list it would be
> ok
> > because it would be their own choice.
> >
> > rgds
> > jan i
>
> Again, I don't understand "forced to participate". Nobody is forced to
> participate in this project by simply identifying the role they have
> volunteered to undertake.
>
> Your concerns are unfounded, Simon Phipps, myself and other moderators
> openly publish our identities and email addresses on this list and other
> public forums, so why would we become delicate sensitive little things
> about our names being published for a useful purpose.
>
> Cut to the chase:
> You did not answer my question about the names of the TWO moderators for
> our API mailing list because:
> 1. You don't know.
correct, it is not my job to know that.
rgds
jan i
> 2. There is only ONE moderator for that list.
> 3. This information is not publicly available.
>
> My reason for persisting with this somewhat trivial issue is that "we"
> (those with an interest in project at large, not just Infra, the PMC, or
> some other "sacred inner sanctum") would not have a ready source of
> reference if moderation, for whatever reason, ceased. Unlikely in the
> case of the dev list, but a definite possibility for the API list if the
> one current moderator got run over by a bus.
>
> If it will alleviate your concerns, I will post to the owner of each of
> our public lists asking for an affirmative response to the question of
> publishing moderator names on the mailing list page.
>
> See also the post from Dennis, who summarises this in more succinct and
> less abrasive terms.
>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> S.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]: http://markmail.org/thread/l4yjh7gcgk5k6ist
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: PMC FAQ update
Posted by Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net>.
jan i wrote:
> On Thursday, March 5, 2015, Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net> wrote:
>
>> jan i wrote:
>>> On 5 March 2015 at 11:42, Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com <javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Dave Barton <db@tasit.net
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com
>> <javascript:;>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see this page has now been updated and the names of all the list
>>>>> moderators have been removed. Is there some new (unlinked) location
>>>>> where that information can be found? If not, should we add the
>> moderator
>>>>> names to the individual list information on the mailing lists page:
>>>>> https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also note that the [commit for this change][1] refers to a discussion
>> of
>>>> the rationale for the change - can anyone point me to the discussion
>>>> please?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some of that discussion happened (partly wrongly) on private@
>>>
>>> Basically some of us (including myself) does not want to have our names
>>> published where it is not really needed or beneficial.
>>>
>>> Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish the
>>> individual names.
>>>
>>> rgds
>>> jan i.
>>
>> With the exception of a couple of pseudonyms (real names known
>> internally), every Apache committer's name is published:
>> https://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
>
> yeah but that does not tell which mailing lists we listen in on and a lot
> of other things we do, it does e,g. not tell that I am AOO Chair.
Rubbish! Another public page:
https://people.apache.org/committer-index.html#jani
Clearly and unequivocally states:
<Q> jani Jan Iversen corinthia, incubator, incubator-pmc,
infrastructure, infrastructure-interest, labs, labs-pmc, member,
openoffice, openoffice-pmc, pmc-chairs, tac-pmc </Q>
See also:
https://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#pmc-chairs
Sorry, but I don't get your point about "which mailing lists we listen
in on and a lot of other things we do". Who cares, but you make it
sounds like you have something to hide. Also, who are "we" in this
context, PMC members, project members, or everybody?
>>
>> Our "Mailing List" page states:
>> <Q> Each mailing list at OpenOffice has at least two human moderators.</Q>
>>
>> Without referring to "private" information you or the PMC may hold tell
>> me (off-list if you wish) who the TWO moderators are for the API mailing
>> list?
>>
>> Are we ashamed of who we are and what we do?
>
> no way, but this is simply an information that has no relevance in my
> opinion.
>
> If people want to tell the world what they do in such detail, they should
> publish it, we should not publish peoples names without the consent of the
> people.
It was published for years, so why now do we have something to hide?
> My concern is not so much having the list of names, but more that it is
> forced to participate. If people added themself to the list it would be ok
> because it would be their own choice.
>
> rgds
> jan i
Again, I don't understand "forced to participate". Nobody is forced to
participate in this project by simply identifying the role they have
volunteered to undertake.
Your concerns are unfounded, Simon Phipps, myself and other moderators
openly publish our identities and email addresses on this list and other
public forums, so why would we become delicate sensitive little things
about our names being published for a useful purpose.
Cut to the chase:
You did not answer my question about the names of the TWO moderators for
our API mailing list because:
1. You don't know.
2. There is only ONE moderator for that list.
3. This information is not publicly available.
My reason for persisting with this somewhat trivial issue is that "we"
(those with an interest in project at large, not just Infra, the PMC, or
some other "sacred inner sanctum") would not have a ready source of
reference if moderation, for whatever reason, ceased. Unlikely in the
case of the dev list, but a definite possibility for the API list if the
one current moderator got run over by a bus.
If it will alleviate your concerns, I will post to the owner of each of
our public lists asking for an affirmative response to the question of
publishing moderator names on the mailing list page.
See also the post from Dennis, who summarises this in more succinct and
less abrasive terms.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> S.
>>>>
>>>> [1]: http://markmail.org/thread/l4yjh7gcgk5k6ist
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On Thursday, March 5, 2015, Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net> wrote:
> jan i wrote:
> > On 5 March 2015 at 11:42, Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Dave Barton <db@tasit.net
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website.
> >>>
> >>> I see this page has now been updated and the names of all the list
> >>> moderators have been removed. Is there some new (unlinked) location
> >>> where that information can be found? If not, should we add the
> moderator
> >>> names to the individual list information on the mailing lists page:
> >>> https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html ?
> >>
> >>
> >> I also note that the [commit for this change][1] refers to a discussion
> of
> >> the rationale for the change - can anyone point me to the discussion
> >> please?
> >>
> >
> > Some of that discussion happened (partly wrongly) on private@
> >
> > Basically some of us (including myself) does not want to have our names
> > published where it is not really needed or beneficial.
> >
> > Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish the
> > individual names.
> >
> > rgds
> > jan i.
>
> With the exception of a couple of pseudonyms (real names known
> internally), every Apache committer's name is published:
> https://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
yeah but that does not tell which mailing lists we listen in on and a lot
of other things we do, it does e,g. not tell that I am AOO Chair.
>
> Our "Mailing List" page states:
> <Q> Each mailing list at OpenOffice has at least two human moderators.</Q>
>
> Without referring to "private" information you or the PMC may hold tell
> me (off-list if you wish) who the TWO moderators are for the API mailing
> list?
>
> Are we ashamed of who we are and what we do?
no way, but this is simply an information that has no relevance in my
opinion.
If people want to tell the world what they do in such detail, they should
publish it, we should not publish peoples names without the consent of the
people.
My concern is not so much having the list of names, but more that it is
forced to participate. If people added themself to the list it would be ok
because it would be their own choice.
rgds
jan i
>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> S.
> >>
> >> [1]: http://markmail.org/thread/l4yjh7gcgk5k6ist
> >>
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: PMC FAQ update
Posted by Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net>.
jan i wrote:
> On 5 March 2015 at 11:42, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website.
>>>
>>> I see this page has now been updated and the names of all the list
>>> moderators have been removed. Is there some new (unlinked) location
>>> where that information can be found? If not, should we add the moderator
>>> names to the individual list information on the mailing lists page:
>>> https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html ?
>>
>>
>> I also note that the [commit for this change][1] refers to a discussion of
>> the rationale for the change - can anyone point me to the discussion
>> please?
>>
>
> Some of that discussion happened (partly wrongly) on private@
>
> Basically some of us (including myself) does not want to have our names
> published where it is not really needed or beneficial.
>
> Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish the
> individual names.
>
> rgds
> jan i.
With the exception of a couple of pseudonyms (real names known
internally), every Apache committer's name is published:
https://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
Our "Mailing List" page states:
<Q> Each mailing list at OpenOffice has at least two human moderators.</Q>
Without referring to "private" information you or the PMC may hold tell
me (off-list if you wish) who the TWO moderators are for the API mailing
list?
Are we ashamed of who we are and what we do?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> S.
>>
>> [1]: http://markmail.org/thread/l4yjh7gcgk5k6ist
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On 5 March 2015 at 11:42, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website.
> >
> > I see this page has now been updated and the names of all the list
> > moderators have been removed. Is there some new (unlinked) location
> > where that information can be found? If not, should we add the moderator
> > names to the individual list information on the mailing lists page:
> > https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html ?
>
>
> I also note that the [commit for this change][1] refers to a discussion of
> the rationale for the change - can anyone point me to the discussion
> please?
>
Some of that discussion happened (partly wrongly) on private@
Basically some of us (including myself) does not want to have our names
published where it is not really needed or beneficial.
Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish the
individual names.
rgds
jan i.
>
> Thanks,
>
> S.
>
> [1]: http://markmail.org/thread/l4yjh7gcgk5k6ist
>
Re: PMC FAQ update
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Dave Barton <db...@tasit.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website.
>
> I see this page has now been updated and the names of all the list
> moderators have been removed. Is there some new (unlinked) location
> where that information can be found? If not, should we add the moderator
> names to the individual list information on the mailing lists page:
> https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html ?
I also note that the [commit for this change][1] refers to a discussion of
the rationale for the change - can anyone point me to the discussion please?
Thanks,
S.
[1]: http://markmail.org/thread/l4yjh7gcgk5k6ist