On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Hagar Delest <hagar.del...@laposte.net> wrote: <snip>
Excellent, you agree to almost all of my proposals. If the other forum volunteers agree with what you wrote as well, then this is excellent progress! Let's look at the few items where there is still disagreement: >> 2) We need to develop a privacy policy for the Forums, also to be >> reviewed by the PPMC and Apache legal > > -1. Doesn't it come from the private forum issue? There is no issue. You've > your private list, we have a private section. You want access to it? No > problem. > We handle governance issue in private? OK, we can change that. It was so > just to avoid all the lengthy discussions with users who just take the forum > as a customer service and can't help complaining. > I mean site privacy policy, meaning what information (cookies, etc.) and personally identifying information you track for registered users as well as casual visitors to the website. This can sometimes be part of the Terms of Use document, but it is often in its own document. For example, the privacy policy used for the main OOo website was this: http://www.oracle.com/us/legal/privacy/index.html You link to that same policy as well within your policies page. Obviously that will need to be rewritten. But unless you have special needs (Google Analytics or other tracking software) this should be easy to draft. I assume you agree with this and your -1 was due to a misunderstanding. >> 6) Being listed as an "admin" or "moderator" on a public-facing Apache >> website suggests endorsement by the project, and aside from any >> enhanced Forum capabilities enhances your ability to keep order on the >> Forums. In other words, it is the star that makes the sheriff, not >> the gun. But this endorsement, to be meaningful, should be made >> authentic. So Admins and Moderators should be approved by the PPMC. >> This kind of routine approval is given all the time for those who want >> to be list moderators. I see no reason why we cannot, initially at >> least, simply receive a list of current volunteers to ooo-private and >> approve them all. > > -1. Same as Zoltan. Except if admins and moderators are PPMC themselves. > They are the ones who monitor the forum, know the users by reading their > posts and how they react. > So you want to continue picking your own admins and moderators, without ever consulting or reviewing these choices with the PPMC? I'm not sure that is really compatible with the idea of a project-wide meritocracy. You do a disservice to your own volunteers if you do not bring them to the PPMC, show their valued contributions and allow this to be recognized. Regardless of language, you should be able to say, in a sentence or two, what the volunteers have contributed, etc. This is a key role for all PPMC members, to be on the watch for future Committers and PPMC members. So I'm not sure your approach is really in the best long term interest of the project. What if we started with the admins? >> 7) Future grants of admin/moderator rights would require a proposal to >> ooo-dev seeking lazy consensus. Such a proposal could originate from >> a forum volunteer or could originate from anyone on ooo-dev. This is >> no different than someone asking to be a moderator for a mailing list. > > -1. Same as above. > And for me, same as above. I think this goes against a project-wide meritocracy. But this is good progress. I think the remaining issue is around mapping of roles and what forum rights should require PPMC approval, signed iCLA's, Committer rights, etc. My preference is to start with the minimum, meaning just review and confirmation by the PPMC. But I hear others arguing for more stringent requirements, Regards, -Rob
