Re: PMC FAQ update
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > On 06/03/2015 Dave Barton wrote: > >> OK! One last attempt to clarify and resolve a trivial issue, that has >> become clouded in misunderstanding and mistranslated into some kind of >> "bike-shedding" subject. >> > > ...and misunderstood (or portrayed) as a transparency issue, when the > answer to your question on who is moderating the API list can readily be > found at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6095 and needed no > further discussion. ... which is of course the first place anyone would think to look! Just needs a "beware of the leopard" sign :-) Seriously, there's a community issue here. Those of us not on the PMC discovered accidentally that apparently harmless updates Kay proposed -- and was already implementing -- had been vetoed for undocumented reasons by unknown voices in a secret venue. Doesn't sound like the Apache Way. I believe the continued discussion is because of that and the strong reaction to asking about it, rather than the details of how and why to list the moderators (which to me still seems obvious, uncontroversial, modestly beneficial and best done simply). It begs the question why that reaction happened. S.
Re: Fwd: dfedit considerations and challenges.
On 03/06/2015 02:40 AM, jan i wrote: > HI. > > We recently discussed Qt as a replacement for VCL, it might be of interest > that in corinthia we are working quite intensive on making a multiplatform > rendering engine for our editor. > > This work could be extended to replace VCL engine (NOT the macros in the > application code). The biggest job would be to write a HTML5/CSS snippet > and a javascript snippet for each type of VCL macro and secondly write a > generator on top that combines the snippets with the macro calls and > generates executable HTML5/CSS/javascript code. > > I am merely mailing this as information, since I am involved in both > projects, and wants to see both projects evolve. > > rgds > jan I. > > ps. Using Qt in corinthia is not a problem, since it only affects a little > part of the total code base, so no need to discuss that in here. Ok, thanks for this. Please keep us apprised of this progress. I hope *real soon* we can put some effort into a unifying user environment like QT. We have many issues that I feel are due to user interface differences, instead of the perceived core programming issues. > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: jan i > Date: 6 March 2015 at 11:33 > Subject: dfedit considerations and challenges. > To: "d...@corinthia.incubator.apache.org" > > > > hi. > > I have started the work on a new consumer dfedit, which will be a > standalone exe that on side side connects to DocFormats and on the other > side to our javascript editor code. > > I have been doing some research and want to hear other opinions. > > Prerequisites: > > dfedit should be available on: > > - IoS with safari providing the rendering engine > > - MacOS with safari providing the rendering engine > > - Windows with IE providing the rendering engine (as far as I can see IE > rendering engine is available even if IE exe is uninstalled and replaced by > e.g. firefox). > > - Linux with Firefox providing the rendering engine. > > These are to me, the minimum we need to support, supporting more is good, > but not an ultimate requirement. > > > Solutions: > > I am lazy so I do not want to program directly against all those rendering > engines, instead I want to use a library...for that purpose I researched a > couple. > > - WebKIT, has a real nice API, but requires safari to be installed on > windows, and will require a (maybe simple) port to e.g. ubuntu and freebsd. > > - qtWebKit is discontinued (but still supported) and replaced by qtWebEngine > > - qtWebEngine has a real nice API, but requires chrome to be installed > > - Blink (google) is in java, and thus not very funny to integrate with > DocFormats (or IoS) > > I have not found other interesting kits, so right now it seems I have to: > - support webkit > - support firefox engine > - support IE engine > This would mean I would write an abstraction layer, but maybe this is a > better long term solutiion. > > > Thoughs and ideas are more than welcome. > rgds > jan i. > -- - MzK "An old horse for a long, hard road, a young pony for a quick ride." -- Texas Bix Bender - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
On 06/03/2015 Dave Barton wrote: OK! One last attempt to clarify and resolve a trivial issue, that has become clouded in misunderstanding and mistranslated into some kind of "bike-shedding" subject. ...and misunderstood (or portrayed) as a transparency issue, when the answer to your question on who is moderating the API list can readily be found at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6095 and needed no further discussion. The one and only thing I suggested is that we have a simple, easy way for any of us to check & ensure that we have adequate list moderator coverage. - List the mailing lists. - Mention the -owner address for each. - Add a link to the JIRA issue with the moderators names (like above). That issue will be reopened if we need to change moderators. So this will cause no overhead and require no maintenance at all. This would be a perfect solution if INFRA had not asked us to use an internal tool rather than JIRA for mailing list requests. So in future the moderator names might be in some commits that might not be visible to everybody, but they will still be visible to all committers or so, so not really exclusive... BTW, to me the information "Who are the moderators of the XYZ mailing list?" is public but largely irrelevant. I e-mail the -owner addresses when needed and I'm OK with it. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Some old OOo SVN dumps, of use to anyone?
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> > I agree with this -- it's history for every derivative of OO.o, not just >> > AOO. >> >> It is not exactly the syllabic nucleus of the Vulcan language, but it >> could be useful. If someone can offer a better long-term place for >> this, please chime in. >> > Hi Rob, *, > > sharing the responsibility for preserving the code history of the > former OpenOffice.org project, TDF would be happy to help keeping > those legacy repos publicly available for posterity. > > It is indeed of great help for ongoing development, to be able to > re-trace the history of individual code changes. > This is good to know. We have now several offers to host/preserve the data. First step, for me at least, is to get a copy of the dump of to Dennis. He's volunteered to take a closer look and compare to what Herbert has. If it ends up what I have is important then we can discuss the best way to distribute it further. Regards, -Rob > Best, > > -- Thorsten - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Interoperability
Am 03/06/2015 04:02 PM, schrieb Guy Waterval: Hi Kay, Marcus and all, Somebody found the ribbon more modern than the organisation of the commands in AOO. But he was alone to make this remark. Others seemed more interested interesting to still see/read this. It was already the case in the old Sun/Oracle days. Some users wanted to have ribbons like in MS Office but the very big majority of the users didn't liked it and therefore declined any development in this direction. ;-) by the extensions mechanism, the sidebar, the use of the styles and the portability of the application. I have given an usb key with AOO portable and preconfigurated (templates, cliparts, complete documentation and a set of tested extensions) to each participant. I wonder if the extensions developpement couldn't be a practicable way to begin some collaboration with engineer highschools and universities. After Maybe it's a bit difficult to still find an interesting topic because of the hugh amount of extensions. But it is indeed a great start into OpenOffice development. Marcus a little investigation in this area it seems they need a clear definition of the goal to can integrate the job in a list of student projects. This is perhaps more easy to do with extensions where you have the double possibility to create a new one or ameliorate an existing one. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
On 6 March 2015 at 18:09, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > -- replying below to -- > From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] > Sent: Friday, March 6, 2015 06:03 > To: dev > Subject: Re: PMC FAQ update > > On 6 March 2015 at 14:36, Dave Barton wrote: > > [ ... ] > > OK! One last attempt to clarify and resolve a trivial issue, that has > > become clouded in misunderstanding and mistranslated into some kind of > > "bike-shedding" subject. > > > > It is _NOT_ about anyone WANTING to be recognised, or having their name > > listed somewhere. > > > > It is _NOT_ about limiting the number of moderators and there is no need > > for any existing moderators to step back. > > > > There is _NO_ need to show moderators email addresses, the list owner > > address works perfectly well. > > > > It is _NOT_ important where the information is made available. > > > > The one and only thing I suggested is that we have a simple, easy way > > for any of us to check & ensure that we have adequate list moderator > > coverage. > > > if that is the only purpose, then it is a lot easier to look at the mail > list configuration files, which are available to any infrastructure or > infra-interest committer of which there are plenty in this project. > > All that needs to be done is whenever somebody stops being a moderator > (which happens with a jira ticket) check it there are still sufficient > moderators. > > So for that purpose we really do not need an extra list. > > >I say the purpose is for transparency and sustainability in a way that >these arrangements are visible to our public and interested parties >without depending on membership in or ceremonies of any priesthood. > The effort involved in maintenance is out of a commitment to >provide that without requiring tacit knowledge of infrastructure >operations or anything else. > Of course, it would be handy to have documentation on how one adds >and removes administrators of this kind where newcomers could find it. >That would be much more involved and it is not being asked for. > > The documentation you look for is standard apache documentationthe short version is make a jira to infra. rgds jan i. > > [ ... ] > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
RE: PMC FAQ update
-- replying below to -- From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, March 6, 2015 06:03 To: dev Subject: Re: PMC FAQ update On 6 March 2015 at 14:36, Dave Barton wrote: [ ... ] > OK! One last attempt to clarify and resolve a trivial issue, that has > become clouded in misunderstanding and mistranslated into some kind of > "bike-shedding" subject. > > It is _NOT_ about anyone WANTING to be recognised, or having their name > listed somewhere. > > It is _NOT_ about limiting the number of moderators and there is no need > for any existing moderators to step back. > > There is _NO_ need to show moderators email addresses, the list owner > address works perfectly well. > > It is _NOT_ important where the information is made available. > > The one and only thing I suggested is that we have a simple, easy way > for any of us to check & ensure that we have adequate list moderator > coverage. > if that is the only purpose, then it is a lot easier to look at the mail list configuration files, which are available to any infrastructure or infra-interest committer of which there are plenty in this project. All that needs to be done is whenever somebody stops being a moderator (which happens with a jira ticket) check it there are still sufficient moderators. So for that purpose we really do not need an extra list. I say the purpose is for transparency and sustainability in a way that these arrangements are visible to our public and interested parties without depending on membership in or ceremonies of any priesthood. The effort involved in maintenance is out of a commitment to provide that without requiring tacit knowledge of infrastructure operations or anything else. Of course, it would be handy to have documentation on how one adds and removes administrators of this kind where newcomers could find it. That would be much more involved and it is not being asked for. [ ... ] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Interoperability
Hi Kay, Marcus and all, Somebody found the ribbon more modern than the organisation of the commands in AOO. But he was alone to make this remark. Others seemed more interested by the extensions mechanism, the sidebar, the use of the styles and the portability of the application. I have given an usb key with AOO portable and preconfigurated (templates, cliparts, complete documentation and a set of tested extensions) to each participant. I wonder if the extensions developpement couldn't be a practicable way to begin some collaboration with engineer highschools and universities. After a little investigation in this area it seems they need a clear definition of the goal to can integrate the job in a list of student projects. This is perhaps more easy to do with extensions where you have the double possibility to create a new one or ameliorate an existing one. Regards -- gw 2015-03-05 22:54 GMT+01:00 Kay Schenk : > On 03/05/2015 01:51 PM, Guy Waterval wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > The presentation has been successfull. The audience was very interested > and > > impressed by the sidebar, the portability of AOO (use on usb key) and the > > possibility to increase its functions by adding extensions. The only > regret > > expressed is the interface which is a little out of fashion. Curiously, > the > > question of the interoperability seemed not to be a big problem, perhaps > > because MS Office can now use the ODF format. > > > > Regards > > > > Thanks for sharing! :) > > If you can provide more details on what could be updated in the > interface from this audience, it would be helpful. > > -- > - > MzK > > "An old horse for a long, hard road, > a young pony for a quick ride." > -- Texas Bix Bender > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
Re: PMC FAQ update
On 6 March 2015 at 14:36, Dave Barton wrote: > Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > > On 05/03/15 15:04, Louis Su�rez-Potts wrote: > >> > >>> On 05-03-2015, at 06:49, Simon Phipps wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:03 AM, jan i wrote: > >>> > On 5 March 2015 at 11:42, Simon Phipps wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Dave Barton wrote: > >> > >>> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk < > kay.sch...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > > > I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website. > >> > >> I see this page has now been updated and the names of all the list > >> moderators have been removed. Is there some new (unlinked) location > >> where that information can be found? If not, should we add the > moderator > >> names to the individual list information on the mailing lists page: > >> https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html ? > > > > > > I also note that the [commit for this change][1] refers to a > discussion > of > > the rationale for the change - can anyone point me to the discussion > > please? > > > > Some of that discussion happened (partly wrongly) on private@ > > Basically some of us (including myself) does not want to have our > names > published where it is not really needed or beneficial. > > >>> > >>> Obviously I wasn't party to the private discussion, but that seems an > odd > >>> decision in a community that's so transparent in its intent an > >>> implementation. I suggest the lists of moderators be made available > >>> somewhere because: > >>> > >>> - The identities of the list moderators seem very hard to determine > by > >>> any other means > >>> - This mode of contribution gets little enough recognition as it is, > and > >>> the people contributing this way should be recognised. > >>> > >>> Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish > the > individual names. > > >>> > >>> There is a private@ list but we still publish the names of the PMC > >>> members... > >>> > >>> S. > >> > >> I agree with Simon. > >> > >> -louis > >> > > > > I agree that contributions should be recognized but moderator of mailing > > lists is of course a low burner. Keeping the info up-to-date requires > > more work and the benefit is really low. > > > > If somebody want his name listed we can of course do that, I think it is > > not important here and real contributors have their stage somewhere else. > > > > But who knows finding 100 more moderator is potentially easier than > > finding 100 new developers and we can shine with 100 new contributors. > > If we have a limit per list I step back as moderator ;-) > > > > Juergen (still smiling) > > OK! One last attempt to clarify and resolve a trivial issue, that has > become clouded in misunderstanding and mistranslated into some kind of > "bike-shedding" subject. > > It is _NOT_ about anyone WANTING to be recognised, or having their name > listed somewhere. > > It is _NOT_ about limiting the number of moderators and there is no need > for any existing moderators to step back. > > There is _NO_ need to show moderators email addresses, the list owner > address works perfectly well. > > It is _NOT_ important where the information is made available. > > The one and only thing I suggested is that we have a simple, easy way > for any of us to check & ensure that we have adequate list moderator > coverage. > if that is the only purpose, then it is a lot easier to look at the mail list configuration files, which are available to any infrastructure or infra-interest committer of which there are plenty in this project. All that needs to be done is whenever somebody stops being a moderator (which happens with a jira ticket) check it there are still sufficient moderators. So for that purpose we really do not need an extra list. rgds jan i. > > Maintenance of the information is trivial: > 1. A new moderator is authorised and at the same time his name is added > to the page. > 2. An existing moderator opts-out of the responsibility and at the same > time his name is removed from the page. > > Dave (a bit frustrated, but still smiling) > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
Re: PMC FAQ update
Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 05/03/15 15:04, Louis Su�rez-Potts wrote: >> >>> On 05-03-2015, at 06:49, Simon Phipps wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:03 AM, jan i wrote: >>> On 5 March 2015 at 11:42, Simon Phipps wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Dave Barton wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk >> wrote: > I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website. >> >> I see this page has now been updated and the names of all the list >> moderators have been removed. Is there some new (unlinked) location >> where that information can be found? If not, should we add the moderator >> names to the individual list information on the mailing lists page: >> https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html ? > > > I also note that the [commit for this change][1] refers to a discussion of > the rationale for the change - can anyone point me to the discussion > please? > Some of that discussion happened (partly wrongly) on private@ Basically some of us (including myself) does not want to have our names published where it is not really needed or beneficial. >>> >>> Obviously I wasn't party to the private discussion, but that seems an odd >>> decision in a community that's so transparent in its intent an >>> implementation. I suggest the lists of moderators be made available >>> somewhere because: >>> >>> - The identities of the list moderators seem very hard to determine by >>> any other means >>> - This mode of contribution gets little enough recognition as it is, and >>> the people contributing this way should be recognised. >>> >>> Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish the individual names. >>> >>> There is a private@ list but we still publish the names of the PMC >>> members... >>> >>> S. >> >> I agree with Simon. >> >> -louis >> > > I agree that contributions should be recognized but moderator of mailing > lists is of course a low burner. Keeping the info up-to-date requires > more work and the benefit is really low. > > If somebody want his name listed we can of course do that, I think it is > not important here and real contributors have their stage somewhere else. > > But who knows finding 100 more moderator is potentially easier than > finding 100 new developers and we can shine with 100 new contributors. > If we have a limit per list I step back as moderator ;-) > > Juergen (still smiling) OK! One last attempt to clarify and resolve a trivial issue, that has become clouded in misunderstanding and mistranslated into some kind of "bike-shedding" subject. It is _NOT_ about anyone WANTING to be recognised, or having their name listed somewhere. It is _NOT_ about limiting the number of moderators and there is no need for any existing moderators to step back. There is _NO_ need to show moderators email addresses, the list owner address works perfectly well. It is _NOT_ important where the information is made available. The one and only thing I suggested is that we have a simple, easy way for any of us to check & ensure that we have adequate list moderator coverage. Maintenance of the information is trivial: 1. A new moderator is authorised and at the same time his name is added to the page. 2. An existing moderator opts-out of the responsibility and at the same time his name is removed from the page. Dave (a bit frustrated, but still smiling) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Fwd: dfedit considerations and challenges.
HI. We recently discussed Qt as a replacement for VCL, it might be of interest that in corinthia we are working quite intensive on making a multiplatform rendering engine for our editor. This work could be extended to replace VCL engine (NOT the macros in the application code). The biggest job would be to write a HTML5/CSS snippet and a javascript snippet for each type of VCL macro and secondly write a generator on top that combines the snippets with the macro calls and generates executable HTML5/CSS/javascript code. I am merely mailing this as information, since I am involved in both projects, and wants to see both projects evolve. rgds jan I. ps. Using Qt in corinthia is not a problem, since it only affects a little part of the total code base, so no need to discuss that in here. -- Forwarded message -- From: jan i Date: 6 March 2015 at 11:33 Subject: dfedit considerations and challenges. To: "d...@corinthia.incubator.apache.org" hi. I have started the work on a new consumer dfedit, which will be a standalone exe that on side side connects to DocFormats and on the other side to our javascript editor code. I have been doing some research and want to hear other opinions. Prerequisites: dfedit should be available on: - IoS with safari providing the rendering engine - MacOS with safari providing the rendering engine - Windows with IE providing the rendering engine (as far as I can see IE rendering engine is available even if IE exe is uninstalled and replaced by e.g. firefox). - Linux with Firefox providing the rendering engine. These are to me, the minimum we need to support, supporting more is good, but not an ultimate requirement. Solutions: I am lazy so I do not want to program directly against all those rendering engines, instead I want to use a library...for that purpose I researched a couple. - WebKIT, has a real nice API, but requires safari to be installed on windows, and will require a (maybe simple) port to e.g. ubuntu and freebsd. - qtWebKit is discontinued (but still supported) and replaced by qtWebEngine - qtWebEngine has a real nice API, but requires chrome to be installed - Blink (google) is in java, and thus not very funny to integrate with DocFormats (or IoS) I have not found other interesting kits, so right now it seems I have to: - support webkit - support firefox engine - support IE engine This would mean I would write an abstraction layer, but maybe this is a better long term solutiion. Thoughs and ideas are more than welcome. rgds jan i.
Pop-up problem reported in OO 4.2.0
On the en-Forum there is a report of a pop-up window not turning off on a compiled OO 4.2.0 The relevant (short) thread is at https://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=75807 I will encourage the OP to register this with Bugzilla, but I post here just in case he doesn't. -- Rory O'Farrell - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
On 05/03/15 15:04, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: > >> On 05-03-2015, at 06:49, Simon Phipps wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:03 AM, jan i wrote: >> >>> On 5 March 2015 at 11:42, Simon Phipps wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Dave Barton wrote: > >> >>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk > wrote: >>> I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website. > > I see this page has now been updated and the names of all the list > moderators have been removed. Is there some new (unlinked) location > where that information can be found? If not, should we add the >>> moderator > names to the individual list information on the mailing lists page: > https://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html ? I also note that the [commit for this change][1] refers to a discussion >>> of the rationale for the change - can anyone point me to the discussion please? >>> >>> Some of that discussion happened (partly wrongly) on private@ >>> >>> Basically some of us (including myself) does not want to have our names >>> published where it is not really needed or beneficial. >>> >> >> Obviously I wasn't party to the private discussion, but that seems an odd >> decision in a community that's so transparent in its intent an >> implementation. I suggest the lists of moderators be made available >> somewhere because: >> >> - The identities of the list moderators seem very hard to determine by >> any other means >> - This mode of contribution gets little enough recognition as it is, and >> the people contributing this way should be recognised. >> >> Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish the >>> individual names. >>> >> >> There is a private@ list but we still publish the names of the PMC >> members... >> >> S. > > I agree with Simon. > > -louis > I agree that contributions should be recognized but moderator of mailing lists is of course a low burner. Keeping the info up-to-date requires more work and the benefit is really low. If somebody want his name listed we can of course do that, I think it is not important here and real contributors have their stage somewhere else. But who knows finding 100 more moderator is potentially easier than finding 100 new developers and we can shine with 100 new contributors. If we have a limit per list I step back as moderator ;-) Juergen (still smiling) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
On Thursday, March 5, 2015, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > On 03/05/2015 10:26 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > > I am aligned with Simon and Louis on this. > > > > Part of the reason for knowing who moderators and administrators are > > is for transparency. Civil names (sometimes pseudonyms, such as > > RGB-ES) could be used, although (optional?) Apache IDs are very handy > > too. > > > > Another reason is so if someone goes missing or there is some sort of > > turnover, it is possible to easily determine that replacements or > > additions are required in order to have adequate coverage. That is > > related to sustainability. One cannot address sustainability if it > > is unknown who the incumbents are and where it is useful to add/train > > additional contributors. > > > > It is not necessary to supply email addresses, which is apparently > > the main concern, especially because some folks use private email > > addresses that are not widely-published for some mailings. (Those > > who have an Apache ID often do not use the corresponding email > > address, even on private lists, and it always makes determination of > > binding votes all the more tricky.) > > > > Knowing who is on the PMC and who is the Chair is a different matter > > and that is easily found, just as it is easy to determine who are the > > committers on Apache OpenOffice. In all of these cases, the Apache > > ID is easy to determine even if it is not listed. > > > > I fail to understand why anonymity is important for any of these list > > administration roles, even for private@ and security@. From my > > perspective, visibility comes with taking on those duties, especially > > since there is unusual karma involved. And having it recorded in a > > public page that is kept current goes with the importance of having > > the information current and readily available. > > > > I definitely agree this is a conversation for dev@. > > > > - Dennis > > It seems our changes to make the PMC FAQ page make more sense had some > unintended, and based on this thread, some undesirable consequences. > Maybe some solutions for this-- I agree that we need to keep the information public but also voluntary. The world need to be able to reach our moderators, that is the reason for owner@. Being a moderator does not mean you want to be on a public list, that is and should be a personal decision. With 2) you elegantly solve both. > > [1] Put moderators on the Project mailing list page. It seems harder to change > [2] Add a new cwiki page under Directory of Volunteers listing mailing > list moderators (easier to change but that could be a problem) I favor this, we add the different mailing lists, with owner@ and ask moderators to add themself, just like we do with other listings. If you decide to do 1 or 2 and also add the names/emails of the moderators please make sure you have the consent of the people before adding them. rgds jan i > > Other suggestions? > > > > > > -Original Message- From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org > ] Sent: > > Thursday, March 5, 2015 07:39 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: > > Re: PMC FAQ update > > > > [ ... ] > > > > If people want to tell the world what they do in such detail, they > > should publish it, we should not publish peoples names without the > > consent of the people. > > > > My concern is not so much having the list of names, but more that it > > is forced to participate. If people added themself to the list it > > would be ok because it would be their own choice. > > > > rgds jan i > > > > [ ... ] > > > > > > - > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > > -- > - > MzK > > "An old horse for a long, hard road, > a young pony for a quick ride." > -- Texas Bix Bender > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
