Clearly you didn't read the whole sentence in context. You certainly cannot delegate away someone'sPPMC voting rights on new committers, but that wouldn'tbe something I'd call a management/oversightaspect of the forums.
Two different animals. >________________________________ >From: Rob Weir <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 9:44 AM >Subject: Re: [RT] Create a second incubator podling - the ooo forums > >On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: >> Where did you get that from in what I wrote? >> > >Your use of the term "ALL" (in bold characters) > >-Rob > >> >> >> >>>________________________________ >>>From: Rob Weir <[email protected]> >>>To: [email protected] >>>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 9:39 AM >>>Subject: Re: [RT] Create a second incubator podling - the ooo forums >>> >>>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> It's called delegation Rob, and it's done all the >>>> time within the ASF. The PPMC can delegate ALL >>>> >>>> management/oversight aspects to whomever is on >>>> the PPMC that is also involved with the forums. >>>> >>>> So long as 1 person on the PPMC is watching over >>>> the activity, and anything noteworthy gets passed >>>> along to the board via PPMC reports, it's a perfectly >>>> humane way of conducting yourselves. >>>> >>> >>>So we can delegate selection of approval of committers to a single >>>PPMC member? Really? >>> >>>-Rob >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>________________________________ >>>>>From: Rob Weir <[email protected]> >>>>>To: [email protected] >>>>>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 9:27 AM >>>>>Subject: Re: [RT] Create a second incubator podling - the ooo forums >>>>> >>>>>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> >>>>>wrote: >>>>>> Up until a few days ago I thought we had one. >>>>>> Move the forums over to the ASF, give the PPMC >>>>>> and ASF members the full ability (upon request) >>>>>> to oversee allcommunications within the forums, >>>>>> and life goeson. I see no need for the Volunteers >>>>>> to join the PPMC or anything like that, just keep >>>>>> doing whatever you're doing and keep the PPMC abreast >>>>>> of anything report-worthy when they need to report >>>>>> to the board. If the Volunteers want to incorporate >>>>>> some Apache-style voting processes into their ops, >>>>>> go for it! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>And if I wanted to create a group called the "Calc developer >>>>>volunteers", could we join the project, with the understanding the >>>>>rest of the project would leave us alone? We would vote in our own >>>>>committers, etc,. independently of the normal PMC process. We would >>>>>conduct our business on restricted-access mailing lists, not visible >>>>>to the public. But on request we'd allow PMC members to join these >>>>>lists. >>>>> >>>>>Ignore for a second the IP implications. That is really a red >>>>>herring. The point is meritocracy, decision making and PMC oversight. >>>>>Think of similar analogies with non-release aspects of the project, >>>>>like web site design, documentation, wikis, etc. >>>>> >>>>>Where else does Apache have a meritocracy embedded in a project that >>>>>does not commune with the PMC? In an ideal world, where everything >>>>>just worked, and there were never any disagreements or disputes, then >>>>>this might work. But in that world we wouldn't need a PMC or an ASF >>>>>Board either. In any case, we don't live in such a world. >>>>> >>>>>It is bizarre, but I hear people advocating for community >>>>>fragmentation in the name of community unity. Having two parallel >>>>>meritocracies within the same project is fragmentation. I don't see >>>>>how we can call it anything else. >>>>> >>>>>-Rob >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>________________________________ >>>>>>>From: Rory O'Farrell <[email protected]> >>>>>>>To: [email protected] >>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 9:08 AM >>>>>>>Subject: Re: [RT] Create a second incubator podling - the ooo forums >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 05:49:09 -0700 (PDT) >>>>>>>Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>>> So to answer your questions, yes it certainly could be done >>>>>>>> within the Apache structure. No it probably cannot be done >>>>>>>> to host stuff here on behalf of some third party. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks, that is helpful in clarifying options. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So to be hosted on Apache one would need to find some mechanism whereby >>>>>>>a forum would fit into Apache; by your earlier post you do not think >>>>>>>there is such a mechanism. Might Apache be prepared to modify (by >>>>>>>extension) their structures to accomodate these? This becomes a problem >>>>>>>for the legal draughtsmen, of course. The old rule of £minimal change" >>>>>>>ought apply. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I'm not asking for a change, just exploring the possibility of one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>Rory O'Farrell <[email protected]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> > > >
