Am 07/18/2011 12:36 PM, schrieb Ross Gardler:
On 17 July 2011 20:26, Kay Schenk<[email protected]> wrote:
On 07/13/2011 06:37 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
...
Contributions elsewhere do not count. It is contributions here that
matter. There was plenty of time during proposal time for past
contributors to step up. They did not. Now this is an ASF project
everyone needs to earn merit in the ASF project not in what went
before.
One comment on this. I believe MANY past OpenOffice.org
contributors/committers were not even aware of the "proposal time". So, this
remark is a bit troubling to me. Really, it is only since well about June
20th that more details of the move to Apache had emerged.
It's reasonable to assume that anyone active in the OOo project should
have been monitoring OOo lists and discussions. It's not like there
wasn't a whole media storm about the proposal. If someone did not turn
up during the proposal phase, read the proposal and see the invite to
add themselves then it is reasonable to assume that they may no longer
be significantly active. The process took weeks.
There needs to be a cut-off period and that period is when the project
became an Apache incubator project. Once OOo became and incubator
project it started to operate like an Apache project. Those projects
give committership to people who have earned merit, not to people who
ask for it.
It's not hard to earn merit in an Apache project, just do some stuff
for the *Apache* project.
This might seem unreasonable when some of the people being discussed
here have been around for a very long time and done some fantastic
work to get to this point, but there needs to be a point at which the
project adopts the Apache Way. That time was when it entered the
incubator.
That the new contributors have to play the game now with the Apache
rules is OK. But they need to know *that* it's going on. I've heard a
few times that it was still thought that OOo is dead. They haven't heard
about the transition to Apache.
For these people we should try to make an announcement (OK, kind of).
When they like it then they will come to us and decide if they want to
contribute.
Marcus
I don't know how this information was supposedly made known, but, well...a
LOT of folks were NOT informed.
�3. What do you expect to see as demonstration that the PPMC is being
even-handed in the invitation of new committers?
Consistency in the application of committer selection guidelines.
That, of course, begs the question "what are our selection
guidelines". Personally I don't see any need to define these in
advance.
Anyone on the PPMC can propose anyone for committership. A discussion
will take place and, in most cases a vote will be called. If I, as a
mentor, see someone being inconsistent in their support or obstruction
of any individual I will ask them to justify their position. If their
position is consistent across each case then their opinion is entirely
valid.
Trying to define "rules" for these things does not make any sense, the
types of contribution are just too variable. It is best to just let
these things evolve and deal with them on a case by case basis, openly
and transparently.
�4. Is it understood why the [email protected] list is
being created and the safeguards that are intended with regard to the
security under which matters of security are raised?
As a mentor I have some concerns about this. The private@ list is for
private project communications. We've already seen far too much
happening on the private@ list (although I am pleased to report to the
ooo-dev list that this practice seems to have stopped now - well done
PPMC members).
That being said, I can see the logic in the argument. as long as this
list is used *only* for security issues it should be fine.
�5. Most important: This is a learning experience for all of us. �What do
you want cleared up around these growing-pain considerations?
I'll echo Shane's comments here. There is no need to rush things. Let
them evolve naturally. Trying to anticipate issues before they arrive
is likely to result in too much "red tape" around the project.
That being said, again echoing Shane, I think mails like this that are
purposefully designed to increase engagement and transparency will
ensure that most issues are addressed in an appropriate and timely
fashion. Keep up the great work.
Ross
�- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 14:34
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
Is this intended as a blog post? �It reads like one. In particular I
don't see any proposals to discuss.
-Rob
On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:30 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton"<[email protected]>
wrote:
We are just one month into being the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling. �It
is useful to interesting to take stock of all that is happening and where we
are.
The main activity that we are all holding our breath over is the
reconstitution of the code base under Apache. �There is also concern for the
documentation and web sites and how they fit under an Apache umbrella.
Depending on their interests and specialties, not everyone here is
immediately able to contribute much. �We are in the process of organizing
and bringing over and IP-scrubbing the initial artifacts for the project
that will be the foundation for further work. �There is not much to get our
teeth into in terms of actual development until that is sorted out. �(E.g.,
we don't have a bug tracker yet and the documentation, localization, and
user-facing folk, including marketing, are still wondering how our project
will accommodate them.)
Meanwhile, there is also how we organize ourselves to operate as an
Apache project.
- Dennis
� �1. BOOTSTRAPPING COMMITTERS AND THE PPMC
� �2. HOW LONG IS THE OPEN DOOR OPEN?
� �3. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO BE A COMMITTER AS TIME GOES ON?
� �4. WHEN BEING MORE PRIVATE THAN PRIVATE IS IMPORTANT
1. BOOTSTRAPPING COMMITTERS AND THE PPMC
The set of Initial Committers is a self-selected group who added their
names to the Initial Committers list on the original incubator proposal.
�That's how the podling is bootstrapped. �Likewise, ooo-dev participation is
fully self-selected, and it will stay that way.
This means that we are a group of people who have not worked together as
a single Apache project community before, even though there are a variety of
mutual acquaintances and associations in the mix.
Of the Initial Committers, a subset were eager to be on the project and
have arrived. That is the overwhelming source of the current 54 committers,
41 also being on the PPMC.
2. HOW LONG IS THE OPEN DOOR OPEN?
There are still about two-dozen Initial Committers who have not yet
registered an iCLA. We don't know if they are arriving or not. �One issue is
when to close the door on initial committers who have taken no initiative to
be here, although reminders have been sent out.
It is also the case that all initial committers are welcome to
participate in the PPMC but not all have taken action to do so. �At some
point, the PPMC will not grow automatically and that also needs to be
resolved.
3. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO BE A COMMITTER AS TIME GOES ON?
We vote on other committers the same as any [P]PMC. �The addition of two
invited committers has already been reported.
One thing that concerns the PPMC (who, for all but two members, walked
through an open door) is how and when do we move from consideration of
previous reputation and being known to some of us to a situation where
contribution on the podling is the determining factor. �We're working our
way through that. �The PPMC is also concerned that, although the addition of
new committers and new PPMC members is carried out in private, we be
transparent about how we are conducting ourselves and that we demonstrate
that we are even-handed about it.
It is not clear what the ooo-dev community wants to see and what the
understood progression to the normal rules for invitation of committers
should be.
4. WHEN BEING MORE PRIVATE THAN PRIVATE IS IMPORTANT
The PPMC is responsible for dealing, quietly and privately, with
security matters and their resolution. �The security@ team informs us that
because we have so many members who are unknown here and also to each other
at this point, a limited [email protected] list is
essential. �We need to identify those few among us who have appropriate
skills and sensibilities around security matters and who can keep their work
secret when that is appropriate.
For this, we want to know who has been on the security teams of
OpenOffice.org and who happen to be here also. �There will also be
cross-communication with other security teams that operate on the same code
base, or in some cases, that operate on the same document formats.
We will be going ahead with the creation of the private ooo-security
list for that purpose. �What we are waiting for is identification of three
moderators who are distributed around the earth's time zones well enough to
provide moderation of incoming reports in something approximating 24/7
coverage.
[end]
