On Sep 6, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sep 6, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:19 PM, drew <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 14:15 -0400, drew wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 19:23 +0200, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> we have spoken much - now its time to outline what needs to be done. I >>>>>> have started a Wiki page with that: >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOODEV/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project >>>>>> >>>>>> Lets bring the talk into shapes. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for that Christian. >>>> >>>> sorry - a double post. >>>>> >>>>> My only real question is regarding the moderators needing to be part of >>>>> the PMC - I'm not at all sure I see that need. >>>> >>>> just to be clear - although I would encourage mod's to be in the PMC my >>>> question is about making it a hard requirement. >>>> >>> >>> I'd think of it this way: >>> >>> We don't want a stranger to walk off the street and be immediately a >>> moderator, right? It requires some level of vetting. A moderator can >>> ban users, they can kick real people off the boards if they do not >>> like their behavior. So it is a position of authority. A Moderator is >>> an important role with real influence. They, through their decisions, >>> help set the tone of the forum and represent the "public face" of >>> Apache OpenOffice. >>> >>> How do we ensure, as a project, that the right people are given that >>> responsibility? In other words, in what way does the PPMC oversee >>> this? One way would be to use the committer proposal/approval >>> process. Something less formal, is what we do with mailing list >>> moderators. We propose a name to ooo-dev, in public, seek lazy >>> consensus, and then ask Apache Infra to add their names. They don't >>> need to be a committer, but they require nomination and lazy consensus >>> approval. >> >> The main change you are proposing is where the nomination occurs. According >> to numerous descriptions of how the forums are administrated even >> "Volunteers" are known and selected before they get that status. I think >> this is probably reasonable. >> > > Maybe you can restate that in another way. It doesn't parse for me. > Anyone in any approval process needs to be known before they are > selected, right? This is not a novel concept. The question really is > who approves moderators? Given that the role carries more > responsibility than other roles, like mailing list moderator, where we > already require lazy consensus on ooo-dev, what do we require of > moderators? > > In other words, we need to connect the dots. The PPMC oversees the > project, chaired by an Apache VP, responsible to the ASF Board. The > Moderators represent the public face of the project, with powers over > users who participate on the Apache-branded and hosted support forum. > How do we connect the dots? There may be more than one way of doing > this, but I hope we agree that the dots need to be connected somehow. > > If anyone can explain better "Volunteers", that would be great. Do > they have any extra rights? Or is it just the case that some of what > Apache would call "contributors" are given the title "Volunteer" while > other, perhaps less active contributors are not given that title? > >> A second change is adding to Infrastructure the burden of maintaining the >> moderator list. I'm not so sure that this is necessary. >> > > I don't think I said that anywhere.
"and then ask Apache Infra to add their names." Regards, Dave > >> Regards, >> Dave >> >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm wondering if there is a particular action or actions that you feel >>>>> triggers this as a requirement? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> //drew >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
