On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > With regard to monthly reporting for another quarter, I believe it is a > structural device for keeping our eye on the ball. Structural devices are > very handy, like checklists, especially when developers are operating > heads-down and not watching the road ahead. (It is very difficult to be > immersed and have an eye on the ball at the same time and I find that > structural devices are valuable in avoiding going dark.) > > I don't believe an expectation of reciprocity has any place in a commitment > to transparency and accountability. > > With regard to the odious task of reporting, I am disappointed that only two > of us have been reliable for providing complete work (apart from differences > being discussed today about what the board might find useful to know about). > I am greatly concerned that others have not found themselves empowered to see > to it. >
+1. The act of creating a status report is often more valuable than the status report itself, which is often just given a glance and forgotten. This is true in general, not just of Apache. But I think you and I have received about all the benefit we're going to personally achieve from writing such reports ;-) -Rob > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 09:53 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: PMC report for October 2011 > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I confess that I am having trouble extracting concrete actionables from >> Ross's request. I need to reread the thread from the beginning. >> >> One thing, off-hand. I believe the commitment is to support mutual security >> concerns via security@ OO.o or any successor, not via some special >> arrangement with TDF security. On behalf of that, ooo-security@ has become >> an observer at security@ OO.o. Having members on security@ OO.o has not yet >> been established. It is also proposed to stabilize custodianship of >> security@ OO.o using Apache hosting. That will require ensuring that >> treatment of all participants on security@ shall be even-handed and >> professional, and demonstrating that Apache can be counted on for that. >> >> If that is a matter that the Board might wish to be aware of, it might be >> said more succinctly. >> >> Also, I would recommend that, because the start-up of something so >> challenging as AOOo is so daunting, and the fact that IP clearance work is >> ongoing, that the OpenOffice.org podling be kept on monthly reporting for >> the quarterly reporting cycle the podling is now in. >> > > To me that suggests we concentrate on the work that we need to do, and > not reports. Can you name one useful thing that we've ever heard back > from the ASF Board based on any of our other reports? Why would more > frequent reports help us? Not that I'd object, if you're volunteering > to write them. > > >> - Dennis >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ross Gardler [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 06:05 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: PMC report for October 2011 >> >> On 12 October 2011 13:51, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Ross Gardler >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Before I sign off I'd like to see the report address external >>>> communications explicitly. >>>> >>>> The project has a real problem right now with asserting itself as the >>>> OpenOffice.org project and defining how it will interact with >>>> downstream projects. Is the community going to take ownership of this? >>>> >>>> It would be nice to see a statement from the PPMC making it explicit >>>> what they wish to tackle and, where possible, how. For example, after >>>> a flurry of discussion about improved security reporting processes and >>>> collaboration opportunities is the PPMC going to deliver or will this >>>> just die down and go away? >>>> >>> >>> In that other long thread -- and it is understandable if you missed >>> this -- I said: >> >> I did see your statement, I'm hoping the PPMC will rally behind it in >> time to be able to put it something like it in the board report and >> make it official ;-) >> >> I didn't comment on your original proposal, as I don't have the time >> to monitor another mailing list (nor the skills in the case of >> security issues). Others might be interested in helping, but they >> won't see it in that thread. >> >>> So I'm proposing that a couple Apache members step up to the plate on >>> this as well. What do you say? >> >> If you feel this is important than flag it in the board report. Part >> of the purpose of the board report is to indicate what the foundation >> as a whole can do to help the project. It is true that your mentors >> are here to help realise that, and in this case the board will >> probably just assume the mentors are helping. However, when you are a >> top level project that will not be the case. Hence my suggestion that >> this might be appropriate for your report. It is a community issue >> that would benefit from the experience we can find at board level. >> >> Please note, however, that my request was not solely about security >> issues, it's also about management of press around the project and its >> trademarks. If you are not yet ready to make a statement about that >> then that's fine, but we probably want to think about it in the >> future. >> >> Ross >> >> > >
