On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:06 PM, F C. Costero <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> *C.* Forum admins must sign the ICLA. They will interact with the >>>>> Apache Infra group and should be official project members. At least >>>>> one Moderator, who will sign the ICLA, or Admin on every NL forum will >>>>> commit to reporting forum status to the Project as determined by the >>>>> Apache OpenOffice PPMC >>>>> >>>> Working with Apache Infra requires you have an Apache ID. Without an >>>> ID you cannot get onto their mailing list. Without an ID you have no >>>> identity in the system that they can assign permissions to. What is >>>> really required is becoming a Committer. That's what gets you an >>>> Apache ID. Signing the iCLA is a pre-req for becoming a committer. >>>> But the iCLA by itself is not enough. >>> >>> The forum admins are already listed in the initial committers section >>> (at the moment 3 persons,more hopefully to come). They all will sign >>> the ICLA and they will get an Apache ID, if we vote +1. >>> >> >> Good. >> >>>> As for status reports, I don't think the PPMC needs a status report >>>> from every NL forum. I don't know about you, but I hate reports. >>>> I'd be happy if the forum volunteers as a whole can contribute a few >>>> sentences of status to our quarterly Board reports, and maybe do a >>>> blog post or two about the forums, such as the "best questions of the >>>> quarter" or something like that. >>>> >>>> With good terms of use, as you have above, with clear reuse >>>> permission, this enables some cross-promotional opportunities, via the >>>> blog, the project's home page, via Twitter, etc. I think this can >>>> work out well. >>> >>> Makes it easier of course > I will suggest changing "sign the ICLA" to "become a committer" or > "become committers" as appropriate. I think everyone understood that > on the forum. > I don't think anyone wants formal status reports. Yuck! The reporting > to the PPMC might just be an obligation to raise the alarm if things > are coming off the rails or whatever regular feedback the PPMC wants.
>>>>> *H.* Should the ASF or the Apache OpenOffice.org project decide to >>>>> terminate its support of the forums, it will grant a period of at >>>>> least 90 days for the transfer of the contents and structure of the >>>>> forums to another host as decided by the Administrators, Moderators >>>>> and Volunteers. >>>>> >>>> >>>> A formality: this is a proposal being considered by the PPMC, not by >>>> the ASF Board, so we cannot bind them. We don't have that authority. >>>> >>>> There are examples of occasions, outside of the PPMC's control, where >>>> ASF might need to suddenly shut down the forums. For example, if the >>>> website is attacked by a cross-frame scripting attack and taken over >>>> and is stealing users' passwords, then Infra will take it down with >>>> zero notice. They will protect the users. They will not give 90 days >>>> notice. They will not give 90 minutes notice. >>> >>> It is not meant like this. >>> >>> They just want the chance to run the board elsewhere if TheASF decides >>> not to support phpBB forums at infrastructure just because they are >>> too oldschool. >>> >>> Its about giving back their data, when they are thrown out. >>> >>> I think everybody understands that a forum will go down if it is >>> sending tons mail for example. >>> >> >> OK. My point was that having a good backup plan covers them in all >> cases. If we just remove "ASF" (Daniel noticed this as well) then I >> think this is fine. >> > I'll suggest dropping the "ASF". "Its about giving back their data, > when they are thrown out." sums up the concern. If the forum is judged > not to work for Apache, forum members would like to be able to set up > elsewhere without starting from scratch. > I hope that helps. And, of course, all views are just my own. > Francis > I mentioned 1. Changing "sign the ICLA" to "become a committer" in part C. 2. dropping "ASF" from part H. on the forum and got a couple of positive responses and no objections, so I made the change on the wiki. Francis
