On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 6:08 AM, Terry Ellison <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/08/11 08:10, eric b wrote: >> >> Le 5 août 11 à 03:12, Pedro Giffuni a écrit : >> >>> Yes, it will continue to be inclusive for all OpenOffice derivatives. >> >> >> So I'm still wondering why OOo4Kids and OOoLight are yet not listed ... >> >> > Eric, > The short answer is no once has asked or the demand isn't there -- yet. The > long answer is slightly more complex: > > Historically and (possibly with some tweaks) going forward, the people who > make the policy decision on the forums are the people who contribute to > them. In a 100% community run effort, IFAIK, this is the only formula that > will work. >
I'm wary of language that suggests there is only one way of doing something that will work. There are a lot of creative folks on this list. In any Apache project policy decisions are made by the part of the community that is elected the Project Management Committee. This is true in areas that the project itself has autonomy. There are other areas, on the legal, branding and similar side, where we need to consult with other parts of Apache. The prerogatives of the PMC are a responsibility. At some point, when we graduate, the Chair of the PMC will also be an Apache Vice President. This ensures continuity of responsibility from the project level through the Apache Board of Directors. In most Apache projects the user support is done on a user mailing list. That is how most projects undertake their responsibilities to engage with their users. I think we've agreed that because of the traffic and number of users we have, that a user forum is the better mechanism for doing support. But I think that this support is still a project responsibility. That is why we are discussing on a project mailing list how we will use Apache hardware to host these forum. > We have four of user -- remembering we run 9 national language (NL) forums > which are largely separate communities. > > * per NL forum -- admins (that is within the phpBB application, not > on the underlying system), though I do all of the admin for most > forums, since there is a big learning curve here but in terms of > transactions the load is featherweight. So 9 phpBB admins total. > * per NL forum -- moderators who do the active moderation > * big contributors -- We call these Community Volunteers or just > Volunteers for short. And how many total are there here? Presumably at least 9. > * lastly we have an aggregate in the EN for called NL Adminstrators > whice every NL admin and moderator is invited to join. > > > On the EN forum we run two closed sub-forums: one "EN - Forum Issues > <http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewforum.php?f=69&sid=da1779e4dd6562bf9cbbc0efd49c1292>" > for discussing policy issues, and one "Site - Forum Administration > <http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewforum.php?f=84&sid=da1779e4dd6562bf9cbbc0efd49c1292>" > for wider admin issues. We do this in English, but members opinions are > weighted if they are representing an NL consensus (e.g. our committers > Zoltán Reizinger and Kazunari Hirano represent the HU and JA communities). > Sorry BTW if you try to access these, but they are closed so that we can be > more frank amongst ourselves in discussion. Each other NL forum has a > closed Forum Issues forum to manage its business. > So in addition to having 20+ privileged users we have 10+ private forums. I am concerned with the concentration of power and the proliferation of titles. Is there any reason why we could not have a single admin across all forums? Or even turn that into something that we manage via the Infrastructure JIRA, for routine requests like creating new forums and boards? > Policy issues are discussed here and it is the consensus here that sets > policy. So for example we had a long debate on whether to support > LibreOffice when the Oracle view seemed to us to be hostile to this. Our > strong consensus was that in reality there is one OOo community, and so it > made sense to do so. > I am concerned with any private list that is not managed by the PPMC, like ooo-private or ooo-secruity. This is especially true while we are a podling. Mentors and IPMC members should be able to monitor our progress as a podling. Having 10+ private discussion groups hinders that. Is there any reason why sensitive matters cannot just be discussed in ooo-private? Or alternatively, for security vulnerability-related issues, in ooo-security (which is also private)? > The issue about supporting any specific product, however, is that you need > enough active volunteers with knowledge of the specific flavour to credibly > offer support. I don't think we've reached that threshold for OOo4Kids and > OOoLight yet. > > Terry > >
