On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Well, we both need to read more carefully then, since that was exactly the analogy I was using in my original note: >>>>>>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. You came back with saying that "ALL" oversight could be delegated. Sorry if I misinterpreted that as a response to my hypothetical. The relevance is this: Forum admins can change the code on the forum. Ordinarily that would be something that we would restricted to a project committer, with iCLA, correct? Do any other Apache projects have websites where the code is changed by non-committers (aside from community wikis)? Given that, would you then agree that an admin (as a committer) should also be approved by the PPMC? But if you agree with that, then what about the current ability for a forum admin to assign admin rights to others? That's all I was getting at. I think the analogy was apt. Sorry if it wasn't as clear as it could have been. -Rob > 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]> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>
