I wondered about Issues too. There were similar issues in the previous report (although the full title had not been used).
I added the title that was called for, because it is about awareness, not requests for action, on the notion that when the podling recognizes this, the IPMC and Board knows the podling has concerns to deal with and is doing its job. I also prefer to avoid potential surprises later. (Still reading the thread here ...) - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 10:04 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for September 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org) On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> wrote: > I have posted a draft for review on the wiki and below. Changes and > improvements can be made on the Wiki page. If you propose to modify the > page, please make it known here so that collisions can be avoided. > > Suggestions here will be selectively incorporated into the Wiki page. The > deadline is Wednesday, 2011-09-14. [ ... ] > * Issues for IPMC or ASF Board Awareness > > The code base pulled over from OpenOffice.org is undergoing development while > incompatible notices remain on the granted code. This is separate from the > scrubbing of dependencies on incompatibly-licensed material. RECOMMENDATION: > Continue OpenOffice monthly reporting for another quarter while IP cleanup is > pending. > > The current committers are not equipped to fully resource the migration of > OpenOffice.org sites and services under Apache OOo incubation. Preservation > of the Wiki is in doubt because of resource and support limitations. > Cutover of mailing-list and registration/forwarding systems is not resourced > at all. The ability to make anticipatory modifications of OpenOffice.org in > preparation for staging is also limited, with volunteer support and > administration of the live system possibly eroding. > > Discussions with contributors of current user-oriented documentation have > broken off; it is likely that the status quo will continue to be with > user-guide contributions made separately and under licenses the authors > prefer. This is not an immediate issue unless replacement with ALv2 licensed > materials is urgent. Having updated user-guides reflecting details and > features of future Apache releases is worrisome. > I think the above misses the point of this section of the report. The IPMC and the ASF Board are not project managers overseeing the progress of the podling's work. They are not concerned about "resourcing" the effort. That is our concern, the PPMC. We need to deal with it. This should be the place to raise any issues that we have that the ASF Board or IPMC can actually deal with. Merely noting that work is hard is not really a useful insight. [ ... ]
