I oppose anything that generates more off-topic mailing list traffic. Collaborative discussions surrounding documented policy belong on site-dev@. Everything else is a waste of time for all concerned.
----- Original Message ----- > From: Rob Weir <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> > Cc: > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 1:02 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> > wrote: >> The release documentation has far more precision in it than >> a casual glance would indicate. There is no good reason to >> write about every associated topic in a policy document. >> I'm not going to read /dev/release.html to you personally Rob >> but I will point out that several people including the IPMC >> chair have been consistently referencing and quoting the doc >> to you so that you may better equip yourself to reason about >> the policy through the document. >> > > Joe, this isn't about my knowledge. I believe I have accurate > knowledge of ASF release-related policies. The issues that I listed > -- the open questions -- they were not from me. These were from IPMC > members, those who were voted in as ASF Members and then accepted as > IPMC members. Those were their assertions. You might be able to > dismiss their concerns easily. As a PPMC member I cannot. They all > have a vote on AOO. I need to treat their concerns with some degree > of respect. > > So the question is not what I know, but how to respond to IPMC members > who raise points of the variety that you eloquently termed "bullshit"? > > One way is to simply yell them down, say repeatedly that this is not > an issue, that policy is crystal clear, that anyone who disagrees has > subhuman mental capabilities, etc. That is the route that some took > > Another way is to first agree with precision on what the policy > actually is and to ask for specific concerns with regards to AOO and > that policy. That was the route I was taking. > > So I think we have the same view of some of the nonsense that was > expressed on the list, as well as a similar view on what ASF policy > actually is. > > Perhaps we differ on how to resolve conflicts when they occur? In > any case what works for you probably would not work for me. So I'll > continue, in situations like these, to calmly seek clarity and > consensus. > > Good cop, bad cop? > > Regards, > > -Rob > >> >> Yes there is a reason newspapers are written to an 8th grade >> level but laws are written for experts in the field. Different >> target audiences with totally different fields of applicability. >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Rob Weir <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 12:34 PM >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Joe Schaefer > <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Bullshit. The policy is as old as the org itself and applies > equally >>>> >>> >>> The problem is that when someone questions what the policy is, as >>> several IPMC members have already, the response goes no further than >>> yelling that the policy is well-known, obvious, unambiguous, clear, >>> etc. No one is questioning the age or the equal application of the >>> policy. >>> >>> Shutting down the discussion, without resolving the issue, just leads >>> to it emerging later at another point. In fact, if you go back to the >>> general.i.a.o discussion from June 2011, when the AOO podling was >>> first proposed, some of the same concerns were raised by some of the >>> same IPMC members. They were not resolved then. They were not >>> resolved this time. What do you think happens next? Do you really >>> think that there is clarity now and this will not just come back >>> again, weeks or months later? >>> >>> The IPMC is welcome to run themselves as they wish. But I sincerely >>> hope that the AOO project will not emulate or tolerate this kind of >>> behavior and interaction. It is very unwelcoming to newcomers to have >>> that mixture of condescension and bullying when questions are asked. >>> >>>> to every project in the org including this one. Rob, if you had > the >>> vaguest >>>> clue about the history of what the httpd project produces you > would have >>>> some idea of what the written policy is meant to cover. People > who >>> don't bother >>>> to look often wind up making ignorant remarks about the written > policy; >>>> such is the nature of orgs which have zero educational standards > for >>>> participation at any level. >>>> >>> >>> Certainly unwritten policies are even more susceptible to ignorant > remarks. >>> >>>> Policy writing itself is a long and painful process in a bottom-up > org. >>>> Very few people have enough experience with the diversity of our > projects >>>> to ensure the policy accurately reflects current activity. The > only person >>>> who I've seen be consistently successful is Roy, and even then > not >>> without >>>> input from others. >>>> >>> >>> I appreciate the challenges of writing organizational policies. > I've >>> done this in other organizations. But as you say, this policy "is > as >>> old as the org itself ", and yet when it is shown that those who > are >>> charged with implementing the policy for podlings (IPMC members) >>> cannot agree on what the policy is, there is still great resistance to >>> writing it down, amounting to even personal attacks against those who >>> even suggest doing this. >>> >>>> Your are welcome to get off your armchair and participate > constructively >>>> with others who care about the policy documentation over on > site-dev@. >>> >>> Indeed I did propose a statement of the policy. I believe I'm the >>> only one who did. But at the same time others posted that it would be >>> unwelcome to make any website changes without further discussion. >>> >>>> Otherwise I suggest you drop the antagonistic and over-the-top > prose. >>> >>> I sincerely hope that nothing I said is taken as antagonistic. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> -Rob >>> >
