Dennis, not commenting all of your e-mail, you speak out what I have observed.
I now heard very often "there is no rush" in this discussion but actually there is rush. As you said: > The second is that the Forum operators may be losing faith in Apache. > Yesterday, it seemed that they were eager to adjust their way of operating to > accommodate the basic requirements, especially the relaxed case that you have > described as sufficient for going ahead. We now need to come up with a written (!) proposal immediately and discuss it with the forum maintainers. A wiki is a good place. Once we have agreed, we need to vote on both mediums - mailinglist and forum. The latter one because this is what they have used before. I have also not only seen that forum operators loose faith - some ooo-dev people have no faith in the forum people too. I have read statements like "we are not going to give access to all those people at once" etc (from mind). This is why I brought in the idea of a second project. We need to show good behavior, respect and need to come up with a good propsal as said - otherwise we'll loose one of the most valuable part of this project. Cheers Christian > > Also, much to my surprise when I was allowed in as a "Volunteer" so I could > observe and participate on those forums (but not break anything), I > discovered that there are a number of Apache OOo PPMC Committers, including > Terry Ellison, already serving in various senior capacities in that group. I > learned last night that the same is true for the Japanese Language forums. I > find that aspect of this situation quite baffling. > > I am disappointed by one situation observed in the past few hours. A vote to > switch the site governance sub-forum to public (perhaps read-only) is failing > at the moment. One comment by a recent "no" voter was not against the ballot > proposition itself but against the perceived treatment by Apache. > > Another vote, "Do you broadly support permitting Apache members read access > to our work and discussions" involving creation of a special oversight role > was passing overwhelmingly (not one single "no" so far). That had been > initiated by Terry Ellison on Monday. Balloting ends on Thursday. > > In all other threads that I could read, there was more excitement and action > toward finding an accommodation with Apache requirements. I am hopeful that > can be sustained. I will continue to watch as long as I am welcome there. > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Schaefer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 06:14 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [RT] Create a second incubator podling - the ooo forums > > 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! > > > > >>________________________________ >>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]> >> >> >> > > -- http://www.grobmeier.de
