On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > Not everything people do needs to be scrutinized > to each PPMC member's satisfaction. If you do that > without any concern for people's emotions you will > wind up with more outcomes like this one. Some > things are better left up to people with enough > experience and expertise that minor organizational > problems can be "finessed" effectively without > major turmoil ensuing. Part of why I offered > to mentor this project was to apply some of that > expertise here, but I feel so far my time has largely > been a wasted effort and am considering tossing > in the towel myself as a result. >
The forum volunteers came out, declared that they had always been independent of the OpenOffice project, that they had a separate contractual agreement with Oracle to host the forums at OpenOffice.org and that they owned the content. That was what they posted to the list [1]. Do you really think at that point, after receiving that note, it would be prudent to just move ahead with the migration? Is this really a "minor organizational problem"? Their note looks more like a red light than a green light to me. Right now, it looks like we're waiting for the forum volunteers discuss among themselves and come back with a proposal. Do you, are anyone else, have a counter proposal for what we should be doing? Personally I don't think their note really gives us much freedom of action. If we move forward with migration that would be quite aggressive at this point, after their claim of ownership. -Rob [1] http://markmail.org/message/zozbslbelnjlqrlh > > > >>________________________________ >>From: Rob Weir <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected] >>Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 10:52 PM >>Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Support forums >> >>On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Look Simon, while I obviously don't have the time nor >>> the inclination to comment on every suggestion made on >>> this list, all I've *ever* expected us to do with the >>> forums is to just start hosting it on ASF gear. The >>> only modifications infra wanted were with respect to >>> bringing the codebase up to the latest available >>> version(s). >>> >>> Frontloading this effort with a bunch of social and technical >>> red tape servesneither the ASF nor the goals of the Apache >>> Way, whichis supposed to involve gradual, evolutionary changes >>> toboth communities and to code. Revolutions are not called >>> for at this particular juncture; it's hard enough work >>> to just move things over (both code-wise and community-wise) >>> largely unchanged. >>> >> >>Joe, no one is asking for a revolution. In fact I'm suggesting that >>the forum volunteers taking their time and think this through >>carefully before deciding. Others were urging swift action, that the >>forums should be quickly integrated without any discussions at all. I >>think that is the more revolutionary approach, bypassing PPMC >>discussion and consensus building. >> >>If we saw eye to eye on the broad strokes of collaboration but >>differed in the fine details, then I could see letting that work >>itself out as the Podling worked toward graduation. But clearly the >>gulf of expectations was too large in this case. We'll be close >>enough when we are confident that the details can work themselves out >>on the path to graduation. I think we're getting closer. You might >>think we're already there, or we're always been there. That's your >>opinion. Others may share it as well. But if everyone but me thought >>that then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Elephants >>aside, I may be the most obnoxious person speaking these views, but >>I'm far from the only one that thinks working out a common >>understanding now makes sense. >> >>-Rob >> >> >>
