Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
I have updated the draft report: 1) Added mention of the trademark permission request we reviewed and approved 2) Added mention of the difficulties we had this month with bulldozing when the discussions became heated. (I think that is relevant, and we should acknowledge the problem as well as steps taken to address it,) 3) Removed the unnecessary editorializing. Revised version is below. -Rob * OpenOffice.org entered incubation 2011-06-13. OpenOffice.org is an open-source, office-document productivity suite providing six productivity applications based around the OpenDocument Format (ODF). OpenOffice.org is released on multiple platforms. Its localizations support 110 languages worldwide. * Most important to address 1) Migration of the legacy OpenOffice.org website's content and services to Apache infrastructure, including defect tracking, wiki, forums, mailing lists, and cross-service registration using customized software not already supported by Apache projects and infrastructure. Successful negotiation of governance migration of user-supported services brought under incubation. Resolution of copyright, license and notice for content miugrated from legacy OpenOffice.org website. 2) Completion of the IP-review portions of the incubation checklist, which will require getting an amended SGA from Oracle to cover additional source files; scrubbing of incompatible notices from SGA-licensed code and resolving provenance of other existing materials being migrated. 3) A Successful Podling Release * Issues for IPMC or ASF Board Awareness None. * Community development progress As of 2011-09-12 there are 72 committers, with 55 on the PPMC, up from 71 and 52 at last report. Eleven initial committers have failed to submit iCLAs and are out of communication. Discussion is underway with the operators of the existing OpenOffice.org user-support forums for migration of the forums into the project, with adjustment of governance to provide appropriate PPMC oversight. We have created a ooo-users.i.a.o mailing list. A Japanese-language ooo-general-ja.i.a.o is also starting. We have reviewed a request for permission to use the OpenOffice.org trademark by a German book publisher, and sent our approval recommendation to Apache Branding. A Building OpenOffice.org for Linux hackfest was announced on the project blog and carried out over the Internet in the first full week of September. Although discussions on the list are currently calm, we have had cases this month of bulldozing and other undesired behavior when the discussions become heated. The project mentors have worked diligently to coach project members on the dangers of such behavior. * Project development progress The OpenOffice.org trademarks have been transferred to Apache. The OpenOffice.org domain-name registrations are being transferred to Apache. The legacy OpenOffice.org Issue Tracking Bugzilla has been moth-balled as read-only and an Apache Bugzilla established for continuation of Issue Tracking under the podling. The main source code base has been transferred to Apache SVN and is being actively tested and modified. Merging of additional work spaces from OpenOffice.org, and preservation of versioning history is being pursued. The current effort is focused on successful build of a counterpart of the last complete build at OpenOffice.org. Test configurations of the OpenOffice.org forum system and the OpenOffice.org Wiki have been brought up on Apache infrastructure fixtures. Cutover of the forum system is anticipated as part of the OpenOffice.org migration. Detailed planning continues on public wiki: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/
Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote on Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 08:29:05 -0700: Rob, 1. Considering that the Bulldozing term and thread were on ooo-private, it will be weird to have that reported here as status of a group that was not privy to it. (The IPMC and mentors already know, of course.) I recommend that the mention be removed. A community accomplishment would be the increase in civility on the ooo-dev list, perhaps. If this is to remain, do you have a more affirmative statement than that mentoring was required? Positive outcome strikes me as the accomplishment. It's possible to report an issue privately --- ie, to have it known to the PMC and the board (and for podlings also the PPMC), but not publish it in the public minutes. That's normally used for reporting issues of the sort that would be discussed on private@ rather than on dev@. I have no opinion on whether this mechanism should be invoked in this instance.
Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Rob, 1. Considering that the Bulldozing term and thread were on ooo-private, it will be weird to have that reported here as status of a group that was not privy to it. (The IPMC and mentors already know, of course.) I recommend that the mention be removed. A community accomplishment would be the increase in civility on the ooo-dev list, perhaps. If this is to remain, do you have a more affirmative statement than that mentoring was required? Positive outcome strikes me as the accomplishment. I think this was an issue of concern to the community and it was discussed on the ooo-dev as well as on ooo-private. If there are other preferred ways of describing it, then edits are welcome. But I think the term bulldozing is accurate and well-understood at Apache. 2. I also forgot an issue, and that is our failure to deal with the (usage of) encryption software now public in the code base. That does strike me as an issue that the Board might want to be aware of. It might be worth giving a one line summary and a link to each of the several issues you or other project members have raised on legal-discuss. 3. Issues were listed in the August report, under that heading. It might be good to have accounted for them. I have no idea what to say about the organizational one, but perhaps to report that the oversight responsibilities of the PPMC as delegated by the ASF were clarified and are being applied. Maybe this could go under community? 4. In particular, discussions with documentation authors were mentioned in the previous report and discussions as to licensing were identified as an issue. If you have a rewording for the outcome (rather than removing the topic completely from the status), I think that would be a good idea. I think that is subsumed with migration and IP review of source code, website and other content, highlighted as one of the top three things we need to do. That is also related to an unresolved legal-discuss question on the CC license. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 05:18 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org) I have updated the draft report: 1) Added mention of the trademark permission request we reviewed and approved 2) Added mention of the difficulties we had this month with bulldozing when the discussions became heated. (I think that is relevant, and we should acknowledge the problem as well as steps taken to address it,) 3) Removed the unnecessary editorializing. Revised version is below. -Rob * OpenOffice.org entered incubation 2011-06-13. [ ... ] * Community development progress [ ... ] Although discussions on the list are currently calm, we have had cases this month of bulldozing and other undesired behavior when the discussions become heated. The project mentors have worked diligently to coach project members on the dangers of such behavior. * Project development progress [ ... ]
Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: The current committers are not equipped to fully resource the migration of OpenOffice.org sites and services under Apache OOo incubation. Preservation of the Wiki is in doubt because of resource and support limitations. Cutover of mailing-list and registration/forwarding systems is not resourced at all. The ability to make anticipatory modifications of OpenOffice.org in preparation for staging is also limited, with volunteer support and administration of the live system possibly eroding. How is resource defined in this? Don
Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
On 9/13/11, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: The current committers are not equipped to fully resource the migration of OpenOffice.org sites and services under Apache OOo incubation. Preservation of the Wiki is in doubt because of resource and support limitations. Cutover of mailing-list and registration/forwarding systems is not resourced at all. The ability to make anticipatory modifications of OpenOffice.org in preparation for staging is also limited, with volunteer support and administration of the live system possibly eroding. How is resource defined in this? Don IMO the server might be shutdown without notice as well as php support on Apache infrastructure is not well embraced. -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
is anticipated as part of the OpenOffice.org migration. Other services may languish for lack of podling resources. Detailed planning continues on public wiki: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/ -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 07:33 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org) I've started pulling together a skeleton by reviewing the July/August reports and accomplishments since. When I have something on the wiki at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/September2011 I will put an update on the list and request review. - Dennis -Original Message- From: no-re...@apache.org [mailto:no-re...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 07:00 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org) Dear OpenOffice.org Developers, This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 21 September 2011, 10 am Pacific. The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted one week before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review. Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the incubator PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the very latest you should submit your report is one week prior to the board meeting. Thanks, The Apache Incubator PMC Submitting your Report -- Your report should contain the following: * Your project name * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of the project or necessarily of its field * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation. * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be aware of * How has the community developed since the last report * How has the project developed since the last report. This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/September2011 Note: This manually populated. You may need to wait a little before this page is created from a template. Mentors --- Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on the Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are following the project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms for the Incubator PMC. Incubator PMC
Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
I'd like to suggest this be more detailed, so it's clear where the problems are. That way it's easier to determine what ASF can provide that isn't provided already. The current committers are not equipped to fully resource the migration of OpenOffice.org sites and services under Apache OOo incubation. Does current committers refer to people working on the Oracle site, or the current pool of committers in the podling? Does resource mean supply time, gain access, provide equipment, have skill? Preservation of the Wiki is in doubt because of resource and support limitations. Is this preservation of the wiki in its current form because the Oracle servers are going away? Preservation of the wiki data because it's not being done in a timely manner? Cutover of mailing-list and registration/forwarding systems is not resourced at all. Resourced as in people designated/volunteering to do it, no comparable Apache facility, no plan, no access? The ability to make anticipatory modifications of OpenOffice.org in preparation for staging is also limited, with volunteer support and administration of the live system possibly eroding. Specific problems with access, skill level, available people, timetable? Am I overestimating what has to be in a podling report? Don
Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
actively tested and modified. Merging of additional work spaces from OpenOffice.org, and preservation of versioning history is being pursued. The current effort is focused on successful build of a counterpart of the last complete build at OpenOffice.org. Test configurations of the OpenOffice.org forum system and the OpenOffice.org Wiki have been brought up on Apache infrastructure fixtures. Cutover of the forum system is anticipated as part of the OpenOffice.org migration. Other services may languish for lack of podling resources. Detailed planning continues on public wiki: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/ -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 07:33 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org) I've started pulling together a skeleton by reviewing the July/August reports and accomplishments since. When I have something on the wiki at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/September2011 I will put an update on the list and request review. - Dennis -Original Message- From: no-re...@apache.org [mailto:no-re...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 07:00 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org) Dear OpenOffice.org Developers, This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 21 September 2011, 10 am Pacific. The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted one week before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review. Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the incubator PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the very latest you should submit your report is one week prior to the board meeting. Thanks, The Apache Incubator PMC Submitting your Report -- Your report should contain the following: * Your project name * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of the project or necessarily of its field * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation. * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be aware of * How has the community developed since the last report * How has the project developed since the last report. This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/September2011 Note: This manually populated. You may need to wait a little before this page is created from a template. Mentors --- Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on the Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are following the project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms for the Incubator PMC. Incubator PMC
RE: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
orcmid I've responded to your questions in-line. /orcmid With regard to detail, this is probably the longest report already. For context, look at the complete set of reports so far, http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/September2011. They tend to the terse. Previous monthly reports since the Apache OOo Podling has been reporting are these: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/August2011 and http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/July2011. Thanks Don, all of your questions are valuable. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhyt...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 10:09 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org) I'd like to suggest this be more detailed, so it's clear where the problems are. That way it's easier to determine what ASF can provide that isn't provided already. The current committers are not equipped to fully resource the migration of OpenOffice.org sites and services under Apache OOo incubation. Does current committers refer to people working on the Oracle site, or the current pool of committers in the podling? orcmid Current committers are the committers on the podling. I can say podling committers. The IPMC and Board will understand. /orcmid Does resource mean supply time, gain access, provide equipment, have skill? orcmid I meant resources in terms of what the Project itself, those of us on the PPMC and ooo-dev, are equipped to bring to bear. I will get the buzzword out of there. It is all of the above except for provide equipment and running platforms. Apache Infrastructure has provided the necessaries. /orcmid Preservation of the Wiki is in doubt because of resource and support limitations. Is this preservation of the wiki in its current form because the Oracle servers are going away? Preservation of the wiki data because it's not being done in a timely manner? orcmid Preservation of the wiki relates to our capability in terms of available expertise. There is a functioning test instance, but some fixes are needed. It is a MediaWiki and there is no identified expertise in server-level and configuration work available to the project. /orcmid Cutover of mailing-list and registration/forwarding systems is not resourced at all. Resourced as in people designated/volunteering to do it, no comparable Apache facility, no plan, no access? orcmid Yes on all of that, although Apache facilities are generally not the issue so long as able people volunteering are available to determine what facilities are required. That is a project responsibility. /orcmid The ability to make anticipatory modifications of OpenOffice.org in preparation for staging is also limited, with volunteer support and administration of the live system possibly eroding. Specific problems with access, skill level, available people, timetable? orcmid Yes, and here it has to do with the live site on Oracle systems. Although there is a fear of Oracle pulling the plug, I don't believe that is imminent. On the other hand, working with Oracle for how long there system needs to be up so staging can be risk-managed would be good. That may be happening. It is not visible and I suspect the project needs to identify its needs in a practical way. /orcmid Am I overestimating what has to be in a podling report? orcmid I think precision is called for, and your questions help with that. There's not a lot of quantitative detail. There are no charts, numbers, and roadmaps to point at, though there are proposed pieces on the OOOUSER Wiki. /orcmid Don
RE: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
Resource is energy, time, and skills I think. And also, having the necessary authorizations to work on the parts needing attention. It is probably an over-used term. Suggestions? -Original Message- From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhyt...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 09:47 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; orc...@apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org) On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: The current committers are not equipped to fully resource the migration of OpenOffice.org sites and services under Apache OOo incubation. Preservation of the Wiki is in doubt because of resource and support limitations. Cutover of mailing-list and registration/forwarding systems is not resourced at all. The ability to make anticipatory modifications of OpenOffice.org in preparation for staging is also limited, with volunteer support and administration of the live system possibly eroding. How is resource defined in this? Don
RE: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
I wondered about Issues too. There were similar issues in the previous report (although the full title had not been used). I added the title that was called for, because it is about awareness, not requests for action, on the notion that when the podling recognizes this, the IPMC and Board knows the podling has concerns to deal with and is doing its job. I also prefer to avoid potential surprises later. (Still reading the thread here ...) - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 10:04 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org) On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: I have posted a draft for review on the wiki and below. Changes and improvements can be made on the Wiki page. If you propose to modify the page, please make it known here so that collisions can be avoided. Suggestions here will be selectively incorporated into the Wiki page. The deadline is Wednesday, 2011-09-14. [ ... ] * Issues for IPMC or ASF Board Awareness The code base pulled over from OpenOffice.org is undergoing development while incompatible notices remain on the granted code. This is separate from the scrubbing of dependencies on incompatibly-licensed material. RECOMMENDATION: Continue OpenOffice monthly reporting for another quarter while IP cleanup is pending. The current committers are not equipped to fully resource the migration of OpenOffice.org sites and services under Apache OOo incubation. Preservation of the Wiki is in doubt because of resource and support limitations. Cutover of mailing-list and registration/forwarding systems is not resourced at all. The ability to make anticipatory modifications of OpenOffice.org in preparation for staging is also limited, with volunteer support and administration of the live system possibly eroding. Discussions with contributors of current user-oriented documentation have broken off; it is likely that the status quo will continue to be with user-guide contributions made separately and under licenses the authors prefer. This is not an immediate issue unless replacement with ALv2 licensed materials is urgent. Having updated user-guides reflecting details and features of future Apache releases is worrisome. I think the above misses the point of this section of the report. The IPMC and the ASF Board are not project managers overseeing the progress of the podling's work. They are not concerned about resourcing the effort. That is our concern, the PPMC. We need to deal with it. This should be the place to raise any issues that we have that the ASF Board or IPMC can actually deal with. Merely noting that work is hard is not really a useful insight. [ ... ]
Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Resource is energy, time, and skills I think. And also, having the necessary authorizations to work on the parts needing attention. It is probably an over-used term. Suggestions? Needing attention is a curious phrase. I think an Apache project has exactly the amount of effort it needs to do the tasks that its volunteers are volunteering to do at any given time. Nothing external is mandating a plan or a set of tasks for us, beyond a few administrative items, like preparing this report. We prioritize by our own efforts. If right now, more people want to work on merging CWS's into the SVN than migrate the wiki, then no one can say that is wrong. All you can do is say you have a different priority and you can back that up by directing your own time, or by recruiting additional help. So I think it is incorrect to suggest that there is a gap between a plan and effort. The idea of an under-staffed plan is an oxymoron. If there is something that is not being done, that someone wants to see done, they have three basic paths forward: 1) Do it themselves 2) Get others on the project excited about the task, so they think it is interesting and fun to do it, 3) Recruit others from outside the project, with skills and interest. A specific example. You had Cutover of mailing-list and registration/forwarding systems is not resourced at all. Is there anything that prevents someone from doing this if they have the time and skills? Does it require an exotic skill set that none of us have or can develop? Or is it just a case that this is just not high on anyone's priority list right now? I get the impression that the latter is true. If so, the Board isn't going to help with that. A while back I created a Help Wanted [1] page on the wiki, with ideas that people could work on. Maybe it would be worth updating that with some additional areas that we think volunteers could contribute to. Then we could have a blog post to make more people aware of how they can help? Would that work? [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Help+Wanted -Rob -Original Message- From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhyt...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 09:47 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; orc...@apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org) On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: The current committers are not equipped to fully resource the migration of OpenOffice.org sites and services under Apache OOo incubation. Preservation of the Wiki is in doubt because of resource and support limitations. Cutover of mailing-list and registration/forwarding systems is not resourced at all. The ability to make anticipatory modifications of OpenOffice.org in preparation for staging is also limited, with volunteer support and administration of the live system possibly eroding. How is resource defined in this? Don
Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
On Sep 13, 2011, at 9:31 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: The code base pulled over from OpenOffice.org is undergoing development while incompatible notices remain on the granted code. This is separate from the scrubbing of dependencies on incompatibly-licensed material. RECOMMENDATION: Continue OpenOffice monthly reporting for another quarter while IP cleanup is pending. With the proposed splitting of the site this issue will be properly handled by the project. There is no need for this to be the first thing mentioned as worthy of the Board's attention. I think there could be some more positive comments about the project. The build fest is worth mentioning. Regards, Dave
Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote on Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:16:55 -0700: orcmid I've responded to your questions in-line. /orcmid With regard to detail, this is probably the longest report already. For context, look at the complete set of reports so far, http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/September2011. They tend to the terse. Look at previous board minutes. That (a) contains TLPs as well, (b) also records the instances when the Board rejected a report (e.g., due to being too uninformative). http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2011/
RE: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
Thanks Daniel, that is very interesting material. It is very clear that a one-sentence report is not acceptable [;). There are also some other tips to be gleaned from the Committee Reports section. (Be careful with abbreviations; have no external links, etc.) I notice that this material runs rather late, June 2011 being the latest report so far this year. Is this normal? - Dennis -Original Message- From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d...@daniel.shahaf.name] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 16:12 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org) Dennis E. Hamilton wrote on Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:16:55 -0700: orcmid I've responded to your questions in-line. /orcmid With regard to detail, this is probably the longest report already. For context, look at the complete set of reports so far, http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/September2011. They tend to the terse. Look at previous board minutes. That (a) contains TLPs as well, (b) also records the instances when the Board rejected a report (e.g., due to being too uninformative). http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2011/
RE: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
The buildfest was mentioned. I forgot what it was called while I was writing, though. The issue you are pointing at is about the code base (ooo/trunk), not the web site. I don't understand putting accomplishments in the issues section. If you see more for Community and Project progress, I welcome your additions. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 15:07 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org) On Sep 13, 2011, at 9:31 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: The code base pulled over from OpenOffice.org is undergoing development while incompatible notices remain on the granted code. This is separate from the scrubbing of dependencies on incompatibly-licensed material. RECOMMENDATION: Continue OpenOffice monthly reporting for another quarter while IP cleanup is pending. With the proposed splitting of the site this issue will be properly handled by the project. There is no need for this to be the first thing mentioned as worthy of the Board's attention. I think there could be some more positive comments about the project. The build fest is worth mentioning. Regards, Dave=
Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote on Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 17:01:14 -0700: Thanks Daniel, that is very interesting material. It is very clear that a one-sentence report is not acceptable [;). There are also some other tips to be gleaned from the Committee Reports section. (Be careful with abbreviations; have no external links, etc.) Also http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/reporting (which should be discussed in recent reports) I notice that this material runs rather late, June 2011 being the latest report so far this year. Is this normal? Yes, minutes aren't published until the board approves them in a subsequent meeting. Until then, the agenda/minutes are maintained in a non-public area of svn. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d...@daniel.shahaf.name] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 16:12 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org) Dennis E. Hamilton wrote on Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:16:55 -0700: orcmid I've responded to your questions in-line. /orcmid With regard to detail, this is probably the longest report already. For context, look at the complete set of reports so far, http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/September2011. They tend to the terse. Look at previous board minutes. That (a) contains TLPs as well, (b) also records the instances when the Board rejected a report (e.g., due to being too uninformative). http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2011/
