On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]> wrote: >> Shane there are some intrinsic differences between a DL and posting into a >> forum. However, reading this entire thread I get the feeling that some of >> the current practices on the forum may be unacceptable to Apache / the >> project. However in this case, I would suggest that: >> >> 1) we adopt an evolutionary approach -- that is get the forums moved and >> then make any changes. >> >> 2) we constitute a small group with forum experience *and* ASF experience do >> a specific task of reviewing current practices against Apache norms and >> practices, then draft some change guidelines for feeding to the forums, and >> an impact assessment of their implementation. We can then feed them into >> the ooo-dev list for comment and if needed vote on their adoption. >> > > Actually - reading this thread - I think running an support forum of > this kind is something we haven't done before at apache (or at least > to my knowledge). That being said we probably need to rethink of what > we have done in the past. > >> This would address such issue as: >> (i) Do we allow the forum moderators use the forum itself to discuss forum >> management or must this be done on ooo-dev > > In tradition, all ASF related matters - code, users etc - are > discussed in public on the dev list. The user lists has been utilized > to do support to users. Now there is an forum in addtiion to a list. > The credo is:"if it happened on list, it didn't happen". Ok, the board > is not on list - so it didn't happen. I think management of the board > can also happen on the board as Terry suggested (i think he did). >
That logic doesn't really work. The fact that it is not a mailing list (and therefore "it didn't happen") is not magical permission to do things in a project that would otherwise not be allowed. For example, could we create a forum for project-level fundraising, for paying developers, for developing code not under ALv2 and for selling CD's of AOOo, and argue that this is OK, because, "the board is not on list - so it didn't happen"? > But that my personal opinion. > >> (ii) Do we permit the NL forum moderators to use their own NL for this or >> are we insisting that this is done in English? > > I am all for native language, as long as committers are around who can > understand this language. > >> (iii) Do we permit the use of a closed access forum / DL for discussing >> forum conduct? > > To discuss general rules and how to run the board, I am for ML - > because all committers can read. For specific cases, like bad user > behaviour or such, a closed forum on the forum would apply imho > >> >> I have my own opinions on the consequences of some of these points, for >> example, many NL moderators / volunteers have poor working use of English; >> many moderators would be unwilling to discuss moderation issues for >> establish consensus if this had to be done in public. My feeling is that if >> we choose to forced them to work this way then we will lose many of our >> moderators / forum contributors who answer most of the Qs. But let us at >> least draft this guideline and vote on it before executing. > > +1, as you said, ooo was always a multi-language project and we should > not reduce. But there must be people who have an oversight - a few > committers must speak the language, than it is ok. > >> I will post a synopsis of this thread to the forums and ask them to comment >> back here. > > Oh thanks :-) I should answered on the board right? ;-) > > Cheers >
