Joe, please correct me if I am misunderstanding this: I am assuming that Joe is speaking as an Apache Software Foundation Member. It is a requirement that all lists be accessible to ASF Members and I believe they all are, even the archives of private ones.
I keep hearing that the requirement on governance and ability to have complete oversight are those of the Foundation. A [P]PMC has oversight responsibilities over its own functions, but that is a delegated responsibility (and I suppose why a PMC always has an ASF Member (VP?) as its Chair.) If Joe says this is sufficient to satisfy the Foundation's responsibility for activities under its auspices, we should stick to that as sufficient for the PPMC. We can worry about heightened ceremony and formality when we see that a little more is called for. Rob, I believe TerryE's offer applies to all PPMC members and mentors and I'm betting that any ASF Member would be equally welcome. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 11:06 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Dissatisfaction amongst the community admins, moderators and volunteers On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Being a member-based organization the ASF requires > that all foundation activities be subject to member > scrutiny (with only a handful of operational exceptions). > > I would be perfectly satisfied if the private forums > are fully archived and made available to any ASF member on > request, without undue delay. > And to all PPMC members as well. -Rob > > > >>________________________________ >>From: Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> >>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >>Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2011 11:14 AM >>Subject: Re: Dissatisfaction amongst the community admins, moderators and >>volunteers >> >>On Sep 4, 2011 3:45 PM, "Rob Weir" <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> I don't think discussions about how the project is run is something >>> that we should be doing in private. Discussing such matters, even if >>> strong opinions are raised, is the essence of transparency. Remember, >>> controversial is not the same as confidential. In Apache projects we >>> discuss non-confidential matters openly. >> >>... unless they are on the PPMC private list, when that royal "we" no longer >>includes everyone here. I believe Terry and others are saying that the >>(independent) forum community has a similar approach, with a private forum >>for sensitive matters. I also believe that in the interests of that very >>transparency you and others are invited to participate in that place as a >>transitional activity. >> >>What exactly is the problem here? >> >>S. >> >> >>
