My reply is to Andy Brown's post, not one of yours. It appears that I failed to CC: him.
I have no quarrel about figuring out where PPMC oversight goes and how it is exercised. I allowed for that in my response to Andy with regard to special-privileged cases. I chose not to drag that detail into the recognition of case (1) versus (2). - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:04 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was re:OpenOffice.org branding) On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. Well, if we *have* to require an iCLA because we choose (or are limited > to) an approach that makes iCLA mandatory, there is nothing to be gained by > conducting a survey on the matter. > > 2. If we come up with an approach where nothing is changed with regard to > what is currently user-editable, we don't have to stir anything up by even > raising the iCLA question. > > So maybe we need to resolve whether we can offer (2). I believe there is > strong interest in being able to do that, especially in the short run. > I'm not discussing the iCLA. I'm talking about community development. I'm suggesting that we make the wiki contributors aware of the move to Apache and invite them to join. I'd like to do the same, via appropriate means, more broadly, to all of the OOo mailing lists, as well as on the website. > We have heard from infrastructure and security (via infrastructure) that > there are some technical arrangements to deal with, but I have seen nothing > that compels our disrupting current registrations and user-editing > permissions. (There are a modest number of special-privileged cases and they > should be dealt with as individually, seems to me.) > The PPMC needs to have a plan for how it exercises oversight over the project's websites, including the wiki. Having unknown, anonymous users, unknown to the PPMC, with the ability to ban users and delete pages is not a good start in exercising oversight. As was discussed previously on this thread, one approach was to ensure that anyone who had more-than-user rights would need to be approved in that role by the PPMC. > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Brown [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:35 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was > re:OpenOffice.org branding) > > Dennis, > > We are working on some ideas only. There are questions on how to deal > with the current OOo wiki and move it to Apache servers. The concern is > that there will be a lose of "active" users if there is a big change in > the way edits are made, i.e. requiring an iCLA. At this point we do not > have any hard numbers on way maybe lost and trying to see if we can get > those users involved to see what path we need to take. > > HTH > Andy > > Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >> Let's slow down here. I don't recognize any alignment on what it is we >> think we are asking for (or attempting to do). This is going way over the >> edge past JFDI and/or lazy consensus. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andy Brown [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 09:00 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Refactoring the brand: Apache ooo + OpenOffice.org? (was >> re:OpenOffice.org branding) >> >>> >> >> Terry, >> >> Where would be the best place on the wiki to place a notice directing >> users to connect here or at least see if they would be willing/able to >> send in an iCLA? >> >> Andy >> >> > >
