Le 23/12/2013 01:03, jan i a écrit :
On 23 December 2013 00:20, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 11:27 AM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi
based on a polite push from a good infra colleague, I have decided to
present yet another proposal for maintaining ooo-wiki2-vm.a.o and
ooo-forums.a.o (I already maintain translate-vm2.a.o since this is a
shared
service).
This will be proposal number 6, therefore I have allowed myself to cut
all
the indirect language. The last proposal was not rejected, but another
admin and 2 other PMC spoke directly against it, as a consequence I saw
it
as impossible to implement.
I ask for lazy consensus before january 2 2014. Meaning anyone who have
anything against the proposal please speak up before that date. Since the
proposal has a direct influence on the vm-team, the proposal needs a
positive indication from the members of this group in order to be
decided.
===== proposal =====
Wiki.o.o is maintained by wiki users given administrator status. This
includes monitoring users/submissions and watching/controlling spam.
The single forums on forum.o.o is maintained/moderated by forum users
given
administrator status. This includes activating new users, monitoring
users/submissions and watching/controlling spam.
All request for changes in the application (mediawiki, php2bb)
configuration, like new images, new plugins or general setup, must be
mailed to this list (dev@), with a lazy consensus decision of min. 72
hours. The sysadm will without further instruction implement the changes
as
soon as possible (depending on sysadm availability) after the decision is
final.
In the case of phpBB changes, it would probably make sense, from the
forum perspective, for the person requesting the change to post a link
to the dev list thread to the forum as well, in the Site Feedback
section? I think we want the dev list to be the place where the
discussion happens, but it would be fair to give notice on the forums
as well.
then the forum admins will hopefully take it to dev@ where we can agree on
it. Lazy consensus can only happen on ML and its important for me to be
able to trace why changes are made (just think of the logo change without
consensus).
Of course. This had been agreed from the beginning.
We already maintain such double discussion (the download logo for
example): once consensus is reached in the forum, it's sent to the dev
list. And on the opposite, discussions on the ML related to the forums
are mentioned in the forum.
I can take in charge such job (mainly RGB used to do that before).
NB: the problem with the forum logo was more with the interpretation of
the "lazy consensus" IIRC.
Hagar
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
