Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
Peter Junge wrote: What is the conclusion of this vote? As far as I understand the Apache philosophy, such votes are no majority votes but consensus is the goal. Conclusion is that Jan is the person I will recommend for replacing me. The vote outcome determines the new Chair. A a considerable and easy way out might be a double chair with both Jan and Dennis; especially they also seem to have complementary skills. We have one Chair. And it will be Jan. Of course, it's natural to think that Dennis can/will have a major role in the project. This is the duty of PMC members. And it can be done without any formal titles (a thing that I'm sure neither Dennis or Jan are attached to). So it's totally welcome for me to see Jan, Dennis AND ALL OF US work together and help in different project areas. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
For the record, I am in complete accord with the outcome and how Andrea is moving his recommendation for new Chair forward to the ASF Board. I shall continue as a contributor. I look forward to our moving forward on Andrea's Priority #2 proposal. I have no interpretation to offer concerning details of the [VOTE] and the quantitative outcome. My only observations is that the cast votes are what they were (and what votes not cast were not) and the outcome is what it is. Elections are like that, to the bemusement of all [;). -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2015 02:24 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair Peter Junge wrote: What is the conclusion of this vote? As far as I understand the Apache philosophy, such votes are no majority votes but consensus is the goal. Conclusion is that Jan is the person I will recommend for replacing me. The vote outcome determines the new Chair. A a considerable and easy way out might be a double chair with both Jan and Dennis; especially they also seem to have complementary skills. We have one Chair. And it will be Jan. Of course, it's natural to think that Dennis can/will have a major role in the project. This is the duty of PMC members. And it can be done without any formal titles (a thing that I'm sure neither Dennis or Jan are attached to). So it's totally welcome for me to see Jan, Dennis AND ALL OF US work together and help in different project areas. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
Il 20/01/2015 00:29, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: On 19 Jan 2015, at 13:32, Kay Schenk wrote: I am probably seeming very disagreeable here. ... Andrea and others believe that the election process has proceeded as it ought to have, with enough time allowed for discussion and then vote. But you argue the contrary, and it seems that a couple of others share your views. Just a note on this (dead) discussion: I'm not planning any discussion time between the end of (self-)nominations and the start of the vote. If you believe that a dedicated discussion phase must really be added, please request it now rather than complaining later. I know it would be just three more days, but I'm not willing to allocate them unless someone takes the responsibility to request them (and, ideally, ensure productivity of the discussion). The sequence I envisioned was: A. Election; B. PMC re-evaluation; C. New election if need be or is desired. There is no absolute set term for the chair. This is now known as action #1 and #2. And indeed this is the way to go (except that I wouldn't like to see a re-election in one month, since we take more than one month to elect a Chair). Finally, I also felt that Andrea wanted to step down and do it before February. But as he's recently underscored, he's not working on a deadline, just a desire. As things are now, and with a nominations round open, it is likely that we manage to choose my successor in time for the February Board meeting. If we manage to start a vote, I'll probably accompany it with a statement saying that it is not an option that I extend my term once again. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
On 20/01/15 00:29, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: On 19 Jan 2015, at 13:32, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: I am probably seeming very disagreeable here. Nope. You'll have to try harder :-) More seriously, you point to a flaw that was not evident on an abstract level but was in practice. I had an IM conversation with Andrea over the weekend, where I proposed that I withdraw my nomination, as having several -1 obviously damaged the ideal of consensus. An objection to my doing that now is that it's not clear what would be gained. Andrea and others believe that the election process has proceeded as it ought to have, with enough time allowed for discussion and then vote. But you argue the contrary, and it seems that a couple of others share your views. I have no problems withdrawing my candidacy and asking for new round. But I do want to point out a couple of things. 1. The chair role is not at all like that of OpenOffice.org, itself a kind of blur. This role is far more precisely defined and is an admin role. It actually rather resembles some of what I did while at CollabNet, and that included a lot of issue cleaning, tracking, infra stuff, permissions management, and so on. That I see some value beyond this is my take on it; as you know, Jan, for instance, has another. 2. I thought that the PMC could be reevaluated, though I'm by no means sure in what way, exactly. But I don't need to be; others have good ideas, I believe, or at least ideas that could be aired. I thought, and I think I was not alone in in this, that any re-doing of the PMC, however, should logically proceed *after* the election, as the candidate is elected by the binding votes of those making up the existing PMC. The sequence I envisioned was: A. Election; B. P M C re-evaluation; C. New election if need be or is desired. There is no absolute set term for the chair. Finally, I also felt that Andrea wanted to step down and do it before February. But as he's recently underscored, he's not working on a deadline, just a desire. All that said, if we do want to go with a new round, starting from scratch, then suggest a sequence and timing. Personally, it might be cleaner—and also save time, in the end, to wait out this round, and if it failed as an election, *then* start afresh. In this event, then we'd start with the new process next week, I'd guess. sorry for not answering earlier but I was on vacation and missed the whole discussion ... I will not vote right now because I believe the currently ongoing vote shows already a clear signal. Well it is up to Louis to interpret the -1 votes on his own but I personally believe that Louis with his long history as community manager (how it was called) is somewhat negative contaminated and I believe he won't be the right PMC chair for the moment. I propose a second round with hopefully more nominated candidates and it is not necessary to have a long history in AOO. Just keep in mind the role of the PMC and think if you can manage it. If you are motivated to do it and help the project to move forward. This is my personal opinion only Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
My view is more positive. Louis has at least one thing in his favour - long term experience. Also I think he has a clear track record of commitment to the project in difficult times. I have had differences with him in the past, but I think that is just part of any pluralist system. I don't particularly want to be in a situation where everyone has to agree with everyone. What matters is matching experience and expertise to the job and the evidence is he knows this job is different from the previous community manager job he had with Sun. For a start he isn't getting paid to do it now. On 20 January 2015 at 09:32, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 20/01/15 00:29, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: On 19 Jan 2015, at 13:32, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: I am probably seeming very disagreeable here. Nope. You'll have to try harder :-) More seriously, you point to a flaw that was not evident on an abstract level but was in practice. I had an IM conversation with Andrea over the weekend, where I proposed that I withdraw my nomination, as having several -1 obviously damaged the ideal of consensus. An objection to my doing that now is that it's not clear what would be gained. Andrea and others believe that the election process has proceeded as it ought to have, with enough time allowed for discussion and then vote. But you argue the contrary, and it seems that a couple of others share your views. I have no problems withdrawing my candidacy and asking for new round. But I do want to point out a couple of things. 1. The chair role is not at all like that of OpenOffice.org, itself a kind of blur. This role is far more precisely defined and is an admin role. It actually rather resembles some of what I did while at CollabNet, and that included a lot of issue cleaning, tracking, infra stuff, permissions management, and so on. That I see some value beyond this is my take on it; as you know, Jan, for instance, has another. 2. I thought that the PMC could be reevaluated, though I'm by no means sure in what way, exactly. But I don't need to be; others have good ideas, I believe, or at least ideas that could be aired. I thought, and I think I was not alone in in this, that any re-doing of the PMC, however, should logically proceed *after* the election, as the candidate is elected by the binding votes of those making up the existing PMC. The sequence I envisioned was: A. Election; B. P M C re-evaluation; C. New election if need be or is desired. There is no absolute set term for the chair. Finally, I also felt that Andrea wanted to step down and do it before February. But as he's recently underscored, he's not working on a deadline, just a desire. All that said, if we do want to go with a new round, starting from scratch, then suggest a sequence and timing. Personally, it might be cleaner—and also save time, in the end, to wait out this round, and if it failed as an election, *then* start afresh. In this event, then we'd start with the new process next week, I'd guess. sorry for not answering earlier but I was on vacation and missed the whole discussion ... I will not vote right now because I believe the currently ongoing vote shows already a clear signal. Well it is up to Louis to interpret the -1 votes on his own but I personally believe that Louis with his long history as community manager (how it was called) is somewhat negative contaminated and I believe he won't be the right PMC chair for the moment. I propose a second round with hopefully more nominated candidates and it is not necessary to have a long history in AOO. Just keep in mind the role of the PMC and think if you can manage it. If you are motivated to do it and help the project to move forward. This is my personal opinion only Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Ian Ofqual Accredited Qualifications https://theingots.org/community/index.php?q=qualifications Headline points in the 2014, 2015, 2016 school league tables Baseline testing and progress measures https://theingots.org/community/Baseline_testing_info The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. +44 (0)1827 305940
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
Briefly, On 20 Jan 2015, at 05:42, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: My view is more positive. Louis has at least one thing in his favour - long term experience. Also I think he has a clear track record of commitment to the project in difficult times. I have had differences with him in the past, but I think that is just part of any pluralist system. I don't particularly want to be in a situation where everyone has to agree with everyone. What matters is matching experience and expertise to the job and the evidence is he knows this job is different from the previous community manager job he had with Sun. For a start he isn't getting paid to do it now. Thanks, Ian. Note, I stopped disagreeing with Ian a decade ago. :-) And, in fact, I am rather impressed with the success of his efforts and his great optimism. And, yeah, my participation with AOO is now and likely will be for the foreseeable future as a volunteer. I get no money out of the time I spend boring the readers of this. But I really need to underscore what we are voting on (or for) here. Strictly defined, this chair position is basically an admin role, and that, as part of its admin function, it does routine Apache things: reports, most obviously, but also infra stuff, as well as ensuring the execution of AOO's policies, and so on. It also—and this is probably more important—the speaker to Apache for AOO. (That itself does not mean much. But AOO remains a bit of an enigma, as it is so enduser focused.) Most importantly, it's not a leadership position. There is no project lead. To imagine it otherwise is to be mistaken. (It is in part for this reason I surmise that Andrea has always stated that what he does—and the PMC, too—as representing the community, not leading it.) I can see why a longstanding (and former colleague) developer like Juergen would feel that the past I carry (as does he, as do we all) would affect the Chair's effectiveness. But that would presume that the role is anything other than that stipulated, which would mean it presumes that the PMC has implicitly already granted enhanced status to the chair. /laugh/ To restate, I think we need an admin to do admin and Apache things. More personally, I also think we need to reach out to developers and their companies and government offices; and to see about collaboration, if possible and perhaps in only narrow ways, with TDF and LO. I find it insane that the division persists. But that's not at issue here. I would have been delighted to have seen a fresh face from the PMC roster stand for election. But …? Most on it, most who have voted so far, are holdovers, like me, from OOo, or comparative newbies like Rob and Dennis, who have long been involved in ODF issues. The absence of new people casting binding votes leads me to wonder: What could we do to find new contributors we'd be willing to make PMC members? What are we doing now? Even more, what are doing to extend the ecosystem? Outside of the work Ian and Alexandro are doing—what? louis PS I had earlier written that Jan and I differed in our take on what the chair position was about. Jan chided me on this point privately. But we have no differences in reading the description of the role. Our only difference lies in how we would like to leverage the role. He has better connections within Apache than I do, and that's important. I have better connections with many of the sectors using OpenOffice outside of Apache, and with the remnants of the ecosystem that existed for OOo, and my idea was to leverage the position of chair to promote AOO among those hundreds of millions (or a handful)—and to frame promote as meaning as much to get new developers as to get new users. But, of course, that's entirely up to the PMC to enable. PPS, no doubt, Jan will again privately chide me for misrepresenting his views. :-) On 20 January 2015 at 09:32, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 20/01/15 00:29, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: On 19 Jan 2015, at 13:32, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: I am probably seeming very disagreeable here. Nope. You'll have to try harder :-) More seriously, you point to a flaw that was not evident on an abstract level but was in practice. I had an IM conversation with Andrea over the weekend, where I proposed that I withdraw my nomination, as having several -1 obviously damaged the ideal of consensus. An objection to my doing that now is that it's not clear what would be gained. Andrea and others believe that the election process has proceeded as it ought to have, with enough time allowed for discussion and then vote. But you argue the contrary, and it seems that a couple of others share your views. I have no problems withdrawing my candidacy and asking for new round. But I do want to point out a couple of things. 1. The chair role is not at all like that of OpenOffice.org, itself a kind of blur. This role is far more precisely
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
On 19 Jan 2015, at 13:32, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: I am probably seeming very disagreeable here. Nope. You'll have to try harder :-) More seriously, you point to a flaw that was not evident on an abstract level but was in practice. I had an IM conversation with Andrea over the weekend, where I proposed that I withdraw my nomination, as having several -1 obviously damaged the ideal of consensus. An objection to my doing that now is that it's not clear what would be gained. Andrea and others believe that the election process has proceeded as it ought to have, with enough time allowed for discussion and then vote. But you argue the contrary, and it seems that a couple of others share your views. I have no problems withdrawing my candidacy and asking for new round. But I do want to point out a couple of things. 1. The chair role is not at all like that of OpenOffice.org, itself a kind of blur. This role is far more precisely defined and is an admin role. It actually rather resembles some of what I did while at CollabNet, and that included a lot of issue cleaning, tracking, infra stuff, permissions management, and so on. That I see some value beyond this is my take on it; as you know, Jan, for instance, has another. 2. I thought that the PMC could be reevaluated, though I'm by no means sure in what way, exactly. But I don't need to be; others have good ideas, I believe, or at least ideas that could be aired. I thought, and I think I was not alone in in this, that any re-doing of the PMC, however, should logically proceed *after* the election, as the candidate is elected by the binding votes of those making up the existing PMC. The sequence I envisioned was: A. Election; B. PMC re-evaluation; C. New election if need be or is desired. There is no absolute set term for the chair. Finally, I also felt that Andrea wanted to step down and do it before February. But as he's recently underscored, he's not working on a deadline, just a desire. All that said, if we do want to go with a new round, starting from scratch, then suggest a sequence and timing. Personally, it might be cleaner—and also save time, in the end, to wait out this round, and if it failed as an election, *then* start afresh. In this event, then we'd start with the new process next week, I'd guess. Best louis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
+1 On 19 January 2015 at 00:27, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 17/01/2015 Kay Schenk wrote: It's true the two last nominees -- Jan and Louis -- did discuss their views at length, but there was not really much discussion on the selections from this list. Contrast this from the discussions that preceded the nominations for the initial PMC chair -- http://markmail.org/message/fj3ih654amdw4fmg The issue was more lack of discussion than lack of time. We allocated much more time than we did in 2012 to each one of the phases (nominations, discussion, vote). Nobody can say that we didn't encourage participation. We didn't have a lot of participation, but there were no obstacles whatsoever to it. Finally, I do hope Andrea might stay on for a bit longer while we come to a consensus. I gave my availability to resign as soon as a successor can be elected, so I'm here in the meantime. Of course, I expected and still expect this to happen within a reasonable time! Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Ian Ofqual Accredited Qualifications https://theingots.org/community/index.php?q=qualifications Headline points in the 2014, 2015, 2016 school league tables Baseline testing and progress measures https://theingots.org/community/Baseline_testing_info The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. +44 (0)1827 305940
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
On 01/18/2015 04:27 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 17/01/2015 Kay Schenk wrote: It's true the two last nominees -- Jan and Louis -- did discuss their views at length, but there was not really much discussion on the selections from this list. Contrast this from the discussions that preceded the nominations for the initial PMC chair -- http://markmail.org/message/fj3ih654amdw4fmg The issue was more lack of discussion than lack of time. We allocated much more time than we did in 2012 to each one of the phases (nominations, discussion, vote). Nobody can say that we didn't encourage participation. We didn't have a lot of participation, but there were no obstacles whatsoever to it. Dennis alluded to the fact that we did not discuss this singular last candidate -- http://markmail.org/message/4j35qhttrtpgj2ug Looking at the nomination e-mails, in my opinion, it seems that opinions on the nominees was only explicitly discussed by the nominees themselves. So no obstacles to discussion by the community, but no invitation for discussion either. I am probably seeming very disagreeable here. But perhaps the complete process was not clear. Finally, I do hope Andrea might stay on for a bit longer while we come to a consensus. I gave my availability to resign as soon as a successor can be elected, so I'm here in the meantime. Of course, I expected and still expect this to happen within a reasonable time! Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- - MzK There's a bit of magic in everything, and some loss to even things out. -- Lou Reed - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
Although Andrea had made clear what the timeline is, hindsight suggests that, once the fact of an unopposed candidate emerged, there probably was need for a [DISCUSS] about that singular situation, with more time before calling a vote or perhaps not even requiring a [VOTE]. Instead, we have this apparent demonstration of deep-seated disagreement in the community. It is amazing, to me, that with only one person standing up and willing to take the job, that there are folks who apparently would rather not have a PMC Chair than have the only person willing to commit to the job. I also think that there is a serious misunderstanding of what it means to be PMC Chair. I'm certain there is more to it than that, and we'll learn more in the next few days. I do think folks need to be clear that Andrea is leaving the Chair position and he is perfectly capable of asking the ASF Board to replace him if the Project is unable to do so. An offer to wait for a replacement doesn't have to be on the table forever. Of course, intervention by the Board invites all manner of unintended consequences, and I would think there is enough sense of community to avoid that risk. I suppose we'll see. -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:r...@robweir.com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 06:06 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: [ ... ] Ultimately the +1, 0 or -1 is what counts, indeed. But in the case of a -1, an explanation is always helpful to understand what's wrong (wrong timing, and why? wrong person, and why? do you see an option we didn't consider, and which one?). So it is very common practice, unless it's clear from the previous discussion, to provide it. And I would personally find it very useful. Exactly. That's why we have a discussion prior to a vote, to raise issues and try to resolve them. In most cases it is unusual to see a -1 from someone who never mentioned any concern in the discussions. Or are PMC Chair votes different? -Rob [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
-- replying below to -- From: Michal Hriň [mailto:michal.h...@yahoo.com.INVALID] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 01:48 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair V Štvrtok, 15. január 2015 o 09:04 +0100, Andrea Pescetti napísal(a): [ ... ] Procedural note: I didn't add it to my initial mail in order to keep it short, but it is highly recommended that -1 votes be accompanied by a brief motivation (1-2 lines), especially if you haven't participated in the discussions so far. Knowing what is wrong can help a lot. This holds for the -1 votes that have already been expressed too. Maybe I don't uderstad very well. Let me express my frustration. Andrea, you are active chair and member of ASF! (there is now place for politness) Kick -off all PMCs and bring project to life ! orcmid It is not in the power of the PMC Chair to expel members of the PMC. It might not even be in the power of the PMC to expel members. Even if it were, it is not clear that the AOO PMC is capable of such a thing. /orcmid There are some people who still believes in project, but ... Proble is not non active people, less releases or resources. Problem is that every idea is killed. This vote was good idea but I thought that you will have disagreement or not 3 binding votes. orcmid It seems to me, without any insight into the operation of the AOO PMC, That we may be seeing a failure of community. I also sense that there are different ideas about how work gets done, as if it can somehow be commanded (or prevented). The PMC Chair is not in a position to impact any dysfunctions by much (but would, ideally, not add to or cultivate them). There is work, at this moment, in establishing what is thought of as the Apache Project Maturity Model, a description of what a top-level project should have in its DNA as a sustained model by the time it graduates from incubation. It might be useful for those here to review that model and determine how willing they are to operate by it in their conduct here. See https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApacheProjectMaturityModel. This is discussed on the dev @ community.apache.org list. /orcmid Regards, Michal Hriň Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
On 15/01/2015 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I also think that there is a serious misunderstanding of what it means to be PMC Chair. I will comment on a few items only, merely for clarifying previous discussions. I think Dennis is right here, but I explained the Chair role at the beginning, I don't see it as a big transition in general. Chair duties are maybe 20% of what I do for the project, meaning that the remaining 80% is done as an ordinary committer. I do think folks need to be clear that Andrea is leaving the Chair position and he is perfectly capable of asking the ASF Board to replace him if the Project is unable to do so. An offer to wait for a replacement doesn't have to be on the table forever. Of course, intervention by the Board invites all manner of unintended consequences, and I would think there is enough sense of community to avoid that risk. Yes, it's much better to find a solution (any solution) within the community; the Board is the last option. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
Am 15.01.2015 um 09:04 schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Procedural note: I didn't add it to my initial mail in order to keep it short, but it is highly recommended that -1 votes be accompanied by a brief motivation (1-2 lines), especially if you haven't participated in the discussions so far. Knowing what is wrong can help a lot. This holds for the -1 votes that have already been expressed too. Regards, Andrea. If this should be a vote no one has to argue for his decision. Groetjes, Olaf - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
V Štvrtok, 15. január 2015 o 09:04 +0100, Andrea Pescetti napísal(a): On 15/01/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: Do you approve that, in his capacity as the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair, Andrea Pescetti submits a resolution to the Board asking to be replaced by Louis Suárez-Potts as the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair? [ ] +1 Yes [ ] 0 Abstain [ ] -1 No Procedural note: I didn't add it to my initial mail in order to keep it short, but it is highly recommended that -1 votes be accompanied by a brief motivation (1-2 lines), especially if you haven't participated in the discussions so far. Knowing what is wrong can help a lot. This holds for the -1 votes that have already been expressed too. Maybe I don't uderstad very well. Let me express my frustration. Andrea, you are active chair and member of ASF! (there is now place for politness) Kick -off all PMCs and bring project to life ! There are some people who still believes in project, but ... Proble is not non active people, less releases or resources. Problem is that every idea is killed. This vote was good idea but I thought that you will have disagreement or not 3 binding votes. Regards, Michal Hriň Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:57:43 +0100 Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: O.Felka wrote: Am 15.01.2015 um 09:04 schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Procedural note: I didn't add it to my initial mail in order to keep it short, but it is highly recommended that -1 votes be accompanied by a brief motivation (1-2 lines), especially if you haven't participated in the discussions so far. Knowing what is wrong can help a lot. This holds for the -1 votes that have already been expressed too. If this should be a vote no one has to argue for his decision. Ultimately the +1, 0 or -1 is what counts, indeed. But in the case of a -1, an explanation is always helpful to understand what's wrong (wrong timing, and why? wrong person, and why? do you see an option we didn't consider, and which one?). So it is very common practice, unless it's clear from the previous discussion, to provide it. And I would personally find it very useful. Regards, Andrea. And it is only a polite request for further information, not compulsory. -- Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
O.Felka wrote: Am 15.01.2015 um 09:04 schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Procedural note: I didn't add it to my initial mail in order to keep it short, but it is highly recommended that -1 votes be accompanied by a brief motivation (1-2 lines), especially if you haven't participated in the discussions so far. Knowing what is wrong can help a lot. This holds for the -1 votes that have already been expressed too. If this should be a vote no one has to argue for his decision. Ultimately the +1, 0 or -1 is what counts, indeed. But in the case of a -1, an explanation is always helpful to understand what's wrong (wrong timing, and why? wrong person, and why? do you see an option we didn't consider, and which one?). So it is very common practice, unless it's clear from the previous discussion, to provide it. And I would personally find it very useful. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: O.Felka wrote: Am 15.01.2015 um 09:04 schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Procedural note: I didn't add it to my initial mail in order to keep it short, but it is highly recommended that -1 votes be accompanied by a brief motivation (1-2 lines), especially if you haven't participated in the discussions so far. Knowing what is wrong can help a lot. This holds for the -1 votes that have already been expressed too. If this should be a vote no one has to argue for his decision. Ultimately the +1, 0 or -1 is what counts, indeed. But in the case of a -1, an explanation is always helpful to understand what's wrong (wrong timing, and why? wrong person, and why? do you see an option we didn't consider, and which one?). So it is very common practice, unless it's clear from the previous discussion, to provide it. And I would personally find it very useful. Exactly. That's why we have a discussion prior to a vote, to raise issues and try to resolve them. In most cases it is unusual to see a -1 from someone who never mentioned any concern in the discussions. Or are PMC Chair votes different? -Rob Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
