On 9/25/12 7:15 AM, imacat wrote: > I feel honored to be listed. I would like to help PMC if there is a > chance.
I am sure you will and you already does > > In any case, I suggest at least one female should be included in the > PMC, to encourage the contribution of females in the community and bring > diverse voices in PMC. It is very important to encourage more and more > female contributors to join the community, and make them feel that > OpenOffice is theirs', not of some male geeks. interesting view and I agree. Well I personally have never differentiated between female/male contributors and I am happy and welcome any contributor here at Apache. And I think we are on a good way. We have a growing number of female contributors here in our project and of course many of them are coming from Asia. We are now really global and have many contributors from all over the world. But we can always do better ;-) > > I also suggest to include Asians. From the past experience of > OpenOffice.org, the main problem of the Asian community is that we are > not included in the project. The problem of Asian text processing is > very different than that of Latin text. It was very difficult for many > most important Asian problems to be heard by non-Asian people. It shall > change and make a significant difference when Asians are included in PMC. I think it is already addressed with some names on the list and I agree that Asia is important for us to grow our community. But I also think that we don't differentiate here. Nobody will get an advantage because of the simple fact that she/he is coming from Asia. I think we will recognize all contributions in the same way and when we noticed that somebody does a great job here and help us to grow the community and the project we will surely consider the PMC membership. We want to grow in all areas! Juergen > > On 2012/09/25 06:31, Andrea Pescetti said: >> On 24/09/2012 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >>> On 9/24/12 10:26 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>>> Just to confirm that I have received no offline nominations. >>> >>> thanks for this info, it shows that the approach was not so wrong and we >>> had no real need for this additional option. >> >> It's still good to have had this option, so we are sure that everybody >> who wanted to participate in the process had the opportunity to do so. >> And it's even better that in the end everybody decided to make their >> nomination in public. >> >>> I am looking forward to Andrew's summary and from my perspective we >>> should already start thinking what will be next? >> >> Before moving on with all the steps you listed (and I agree with all of >> them) we will need to actually see the summary and derive the potential >> PMC from there. So far I've seen opinions ranging from including only >> the 10 most popular nominees to including everybody who received at >> least one nomination. Probably the best solution is somewhere in >> between, but once we have the summary the situation will probably be >> clearer. >> >> Regards, >> Andrea. > >
