+1 Just a note: I am a global moderator of OpenOffice.org Community Forum Japanese. http://user.services.openoffice.org/ja/forum/
Thanks, Nakata Maho From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <[email protected]> Subject: [VOTE][DISCUSS] Acceptance of the OpenOffice.org Proposal - Inclusiveness Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:43:05 -0700 > Thanks Ross, I wish to correct what I have done: > > THE IMPORTANT PART > > Please, anyone: If you wish to have your preference known concerning this > proposal, please cast a vote. It establishes a sense of what overall > participation in ooo-dev and others think concerning the acceptance of the > proposal. The PPMC will definitely pay attention, as will all observers. > That's an important contribution available to all who receive this message. > > Note that I have changed this message to the [VOTE][DISCUSS] where anyone is > welcome to speak up on the voting itself. Please use the [VOTE] thread for > voting, the way that all voters have done so far. > > - Dennis > > BACKGROUND ON HOW THE APPROACH WAS TAKEN > > I thought it important to provide the distinction around binding votes > because > this is not on a private list where all votes are clear. My model was the > vote held on [email protected] as part of the acceptance of > OpenOffice.org as an Apache podling. That is my only experience of a [P]PMC > Vote conducted on a public discussion list. > > With regard to listing the PPMC: The PPMC roster is not currently visible > outside of the PPMC. It seemed important for others to have a sense of who > this Project Management Committee is. I think it is rather a mystery for the > OpenOffice.org Forum operators and also many other ooo-dev visitors. There > is > consensus to list the PPMC on the OpenOffice.org Incubator Status page. I > though it useful to make the roster available earlier in conjunction with > this > event. > > I regret any suggestion that anyone's vote is unimportant. I apologize. All > votes will be tallied. In presenting the results, I will differentiate the > PPMC-cast votes. I did not want to surprise someone who was expecting some > different way of determining the outcome. This is not straw poll. It is a > vote of the PPMC to accept a proposal on behalf of the project. I suppose it > is a PPMC vote with a straw poll of all of the ooo-dev subscribers and other > posters thrown in. > > Please, anyone: If you wish to have your preference known concerning this > proposal, please cast a vote. It establishes a sense of what overall > participation in ooo-dev and others think concerning the acceptance of the > proposal. The PPMC will definitely pay attention, as will all observers. > That's an important contribution available to all who receive this message. > > - Dennis > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ross Gardler [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 15:51 > To: [email protected] > Subject: How voting works... > > I'm not going to dig into all the details of how a vote is called in the ASF. > > In posting this I am not asking for the current vote to be recalled, > there is no need. > > I am just wanting to flag something that concerns me about how the > vote was called (and as per usual this is just advice from a mentor, > these are not rules that must be adopted). > > In an ASF community everyone is entitled to an opinion. Everyone > should be encouraged to express that opinion in a formal vote, just as > much as they should be encouraged to express their opinions in day to > day discussion. > > It is true that only some members of the community have binding votes. > However, this only becomes important in the event of an absence of > community consensus. > > Therefore, when calling a vote please do not word it in such a way > that implies others in the community do not have a vote that counts. > It does count. A responsible PPMC member will use their own vote to > support any appropriate objections from the community. They can only > do that if the community is encouraged to express their views > alongside everyone else.. > > Specifically, there is no need to define binding votes in the vote > thread, the way Apache Projects vote is well documented and, over > time, the AOOo project will gain its own guidelines. Secondly, do not > list the people who are "important" enough to have a binding vote. > Thirdly, explicitly call for all community members to express their > preferences in the vote. > > In other words, make every action of the PPMC as inclusive as possible. > > Finally, Denis - thank you for calling the vote. > > Ross > > -- > Ross Gardler (@rgardler) > Programme Leader (Open Development) > OpenDirective http://opendirective.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:56 > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [VOTE][DISCUSS] Acceptance of the OpenOffice.org Proposal > > Dave, thanks for your questions. > > My reading as the initiator of the [VOTE]: > > The vote is solely on the acceptance of the proposal. The proposal is the > text so identified on the OOOUSER web page. > > Actions that are called for require their own execution, including further > discussion as needed. Finally, personnel matters are not discussed here or > voted on here ever, as far as I know. In any case, it is not part of this > vote. I recommend that no such discussion occur here. > > Likewise, there is nothing in the statement of the vote that suggests who will > do what, regardless of table-talk to that effect. It is not part of the > ballot measure. > > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Fisher [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 09:54 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [VOTE][DISCUSS] Acceptance of the OpenOffice.org Proposal > > When voting for the proposal are we (or are we not) voting for "Initial > Committers / PMC" > > Rory O'Farrell - RoryOF - ofarrwrk at iol.ie > > Ricardo Gabriel Berlasso - RGB-es on the Spanish forums (Admin) - rgb dot mldc > at gmail dot com > > If I am not mistaken that formality needs to occur on ooo-private as a > separate process. I have started a [DISCUSS] thread there. Normally a DISCUSS > / VOTE on ooo-private is NOT discussed in public. I think an exception should > be made here to assure the community that the whole of the proposal is being > fairly "processed" by the PPMC. > > Regards, > Dave > > On Oct 18, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > >> In reply to this message on [email protected], vote for the >> acceptance of the proposal for governance and operation of the >> OpenOffice.org >> Forums within the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling. The Proposal text is at >> the >> October 12 version of wiki page >> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Changes+integrate+the+forums+into+the+AOOo+project>. >> >> The balloting will end midnight Friday, 2011-10-21T24:00Z, over 72 hours >> from >> now. >> >> A majority of approvals over disapprovals constitutes acceptance of the >> proposal. >> >> [ ] +1 approve >> [ ] 0 abstain >> [ ] -1 disapprove, for the following reasons: >> >> >> GUIDELINES >> >> ANYONE MAY VOTE. BINDING VOTES for determining the outcome are those cast >> by >> any of the 54 PPMC members (to be listed in a separate message). When the >> same individual casts more than one vote, the last-dated vote during the >> ballot period is taken as the final vote from that individual. Votes made >> anywhere but as replies to the ooo-dev list with this subject are not >> counted. >> >> DO NOT DISCUSS THE VOTING ON THIS THREAD. This thread is for the votes >> themselves, including explanations for -1 votes. Any other discussion >> related >> to this ballot, including discussions with anyone about their vote, should >> be >> on a separate threat with subject beginning [VOTE][DISCUSS]. >> >> >> - Dennis E. Hamilton >> tools for document interoperability, <http://nfoWorks.org/> >> [email protected] gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid >> >>
