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 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
