Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
On Sunday, March 8, 2015, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > On 08/03/2015 Simon Phipps wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >> >>> What about actually doing something? >>> >> That, sir, is insulting. If you want to propose a resolution, >> do so, but please do not attempt to hand out jobs. >> > > Volunteering to do something is much more appreciated than complaining. I > felt free to remind you and Dave that offering your help is all you need to > do if you want to manually maintain a list of people. I hope Dave did not > feel insulted [oops, see below]. Apologies to Simon, but in spite of > thinking about it for a while, I can't really find a gentler way to tell > you that if you really want to see something done, offering your help is > your best option. This is true for minor tasks like maintaining a list of > moderators as well as for bigger, more significant tasks. > > Dave Barton wrote: > >> Is such a hostile and insulting attack necessary? >> > > Well, if you felt insulted too, apologies to you too. It is quite clear > from the context that I meant "doing something [about it]", i.e., about > that specific web page, not in general. I can't see myself being hostile or > insulting, but I cannot spend my whole day in explaining sentences. > > I do not question that the ASF strives to be open and transparent, but >> in the area of community building the AOO project is sadly lacking. >> Comments, such as you have expressed here are, to say the least, >> discouraging. >> > > I think you got your answers and your points were taken. My comments were > surely not meant to disturb anyone and I still don't see anything > inappropriate there, but it can be that native speakers find problematic > language that was not intentionally put there. I don't think this thread > has anything useful to say any longer, and as I cannot write without being > misinterpreted, I'll be happy to move over and remind that I welcome any > constructive offer for help in any fields. I agree with Andrea, helping is worth more than just writing words, and I think it is better to try and read mails with a positive filter. Non-native speakers will from time to time have wording that native speakers can twist.but remember this is not a court house, it is a place with room for everybody, so please think positive when reading mails. rgds jan i > > Regards, > Andrea. > > - > 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.
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
On 08/03/2015 Simon Phipps wrote: On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: What about actually doing something? That, sir, is insulting. If you want to propose a resolution, do so, but please do not attempt to hand out jobs. Volunteering to do something is much more appreciated than complaining. I felt free to remind you and Dave that offering your help is all you need to do if you want to manually maintain a list of people. I hope Dave did not feel insulted [oops, see below]. Apologies to Simon, but in spite of thinking about it for a while, I can't really find a gentler way to tell you that if you really want to see something done, offering your help is your best option. This is true for minor tasks like maintaining a list of moderators as well as for bigger, more significant tasks. Dave Barton wrote: Is such a hostile and insulting attack necessary? Well, if you felt insulted too, apologies to you too. It is quite clear from the context that I meant "doing something [about it]", i.e., about that specific web page, not in general. I can't see myself being hostile or insulting, but I cannot spend my whole day in explaining sentences. I do not question that the ASF strives to be open and transparent, but in the area of community building the AOO project is sadly lacking. Comments, such as you have expressed here are, to say the least, discouraging. I think you got your answers and your points were taken. My comments were surely not meant to disturb anyone and I still don't see anything inappropriate there, but it can be that native speakers find problematic language that was not intentionally put there. I don't think this thread has anything useful to say any longer, and as I cannot write without being misinterpreted, I'll be happy to move over and remind that I welcome any constructive offer for help in any fields. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
Andrea Pescetti wrote: > On 07/03/2015 Dave Barton wrote: >> Simon Phipps wrote: >>> when one does not have access to the privileged >>> conversations of the PMC, actions that use those conversations as >>> justification appear hostile, as do dismissive PMC member reactions > > Well, if it is true (and it is true) that the private list is visible to > 400+ people (more than this list's subscribers) and that, while mistakes > are surely possible and surely have happened, the private list is not > being abused and discussions that do not belong there are often moved to > the dev list with full context, then I feel it's important to point it > out. You are suggesting a usage pattern of the private list that is far > beyond reality. > > Apache OpenOffice is a model of transparency compared to other, even > open source, projects. The importance some people give to private > conversations is really, really exaggerated. But if we continue > discussing this we fall easily in a "conspiracy theory" model, so I > prefer that we get more concrete. On my behalf, be reassured that when I > see a private conversation that ought to be public I will point it out. I have not and as far as I can tell neither has Simon, claimed a general lack of transparency within the project and I totally reject your suggestion that I have made any "exaggerated" claims or I am touting some kind of "conspiracy theory". However, there was a failure of communication in the original "PMC FAQ update" thread. >> +100% >> Thank you Simon. > > What about actually doing something? Is such a hostile and insulting attack necessary? When I first posted to the original thread I had already collected the information I thought was being asked for and was ready to "ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING" by updating the page, if that was acceptable. > You Simon and Dave combined already > have all privileges needed to keep the page with moderators' names > updated if you believe it's really important for you. If you two pledge > to keep it updated, I, for one, will see my primary reason for removing > names (i.e., they are blatantly outdated) addressed. If you are willing > to help, we can surely fix details. This is no longer about the trivial issue of keeping moderator's names on a page, or if Simon and I think it is important. The decision on that matter has been taken and as far as I am concerned it is now closed. The issue here is that in the original thread both Simon and I asked totally innocent, non-controversial questions and received answers which ranged from, the information is already there (if you know where to find it), to being accused of being on some kind of name publishing ego trip. I do not question that the ASF strives to be open and transparent, but in the area of community building the AOO project is sadly lacking. Comments, such as you have expressed here are, to say the least, discouraging. > Regards, > Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > You are suggesting a usage pattern of the private list that is far beyond > reality. > I am not. I am pointing out there is no way for me to know, and that the strong reactions to Dave's original (modest & reasonable) question as well as other follow-ups do nothing to build trust. I believe others here have already taken that point and I suggest letting it rest now. > What about actually doing something? > That, sir, is insulting. If you want to propose a resolution, do so, but please do not attempt to hand out jobs. If the consensus on the list devises an alternative to Kay's original proposal and work, I may consider volunteering and requesting the necessary access (which I probably don't have). S.
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
On 07/03/2015 Dave Barton wrote: Simon Phipps wrote: when one does not have access to the privileged conversations of the PMC, actions that use those conversations as justification appear hostile, as do dismissive PMC member reactions Well, if it is true (and it is true) that the private list is visible to 400+ people (more than this list's subscribers) and that, while mistakes are surely possible and surely have happened, the private list is not being abused and discussions that do not belong there are often moved to the dev list with full context, then I feel it's important to point it out. You are suggesting a usage pattern of the private list that is far beyond reality. Apache OpenOffice is a model of transparency compared to other, even open source, projects. The importance some people give to private conversations is really, really exaggerated. But if we continue discussing this we fall easily in a "conspiracy theory" model, so I prefer that we get more concrete. On my behalf, be reassured that when I see a private conversation that ought to be public I will point it out. +100% Thank you Simon. What about actually doing something? You Simon and Dave combined already have all privileges needed to keep the page with moderators' names updated if you believe it's really important for you. If you two pledge to keep it updated, I, for one, will see my primary reason for removing names (i.e., they are blatantly outdated) addressed. If you are willing to help, we can surely fix details. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
Simon Phipps wrote: > On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > wrote: > >> I'll ask one more time. What action is expected here on dev@ to impact >> how the PMC uses private@ ? >> > > I don't think there is any action that can be taken on dev@ beyond pointing > out to others here that, when one does not have access to the privileged > conversations of the PMC, actions that use those conversations as > justification appear hostile, as do dismissive PMC member reactions when > simple and reasonable questions are asked about them. > > Hopefully, recognising how much harm the resulting atmosphere of mistrust > does to the project will be remembered. Then PMC members will be heard in > the future when they ask that private@ conversations be reiterated or > summarised and then continued on dev@. Note that just continuing > converstaion is not enough; all dev@ members need to understand the full > context rather than being belittled for not knowing it. > > S. +100% Thank you Simon. Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I'll ask one more time. What action is expected here on dev@ to impact > how the PMC uses private@ ? > I don't think there is any action that can be taken on dev@ beyond pointing out to others here that, when one does not have access to the privileged conversations of the PMC, actions that use those conversations as justification appear hostile, as do dismissive PMC member reactions when simple and reasonable questions are asked about them. Hopefully, recognising how much harm the resulting atmosphere of mistrust does to the project will be remembered. Then PMC members will be heard in the future when they ask that private@ conversations be reiterated or summarised and then continued on dev@. Note that just continuing converstaion is not enough; all dev@ members need to understand the full context rather than being belittled for not knowing it. S.
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
jan i wrote: On Saturday, March 7, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: If you mean the over-use of private@ by the PMC, is there an issue to discuss? Those of us on the PMC need to be attentive to minimizing private@ Well look at the numbers, I did not publish the numbers for 2014, but you will see a high number of mails on private@ so it seems that not all agree to keep private@ low. The sample is skewed due to some recent long conversations that we were explicitly asked to hold on private@ by a third party that was involved in these conversations. If you take them out, numbers are much more normal. That said, yes, at times discussions on private@ should be moved to dev@; very often they are, as soon as someone points it out; the solution is simply to patrol private@ for conversations that mistakenly start there, ask if it has to be private, and move to dev@ otherwise. Exactly, the 2 examples you mention are good examples of something that should have been publicbut did it happen not really, look at the number of mails on the 2 issues that alone tell a story. If a conversation starts on private@ because an ASF officer sends a message there as he is unaware that an articulated discussion about the subject is ongoing at dev@ there's little we can do unless we really enforce moderation of all traffic to private@ (overkill; I prefer that, like now, we move conversations when suitable; just with a more active monitoring). All that considered, remember that private@ is readable to 400+ people, many of which work for companies that may have different interests than OpenOffice has; so private@ is not really the small secretive group of friends that people like to believe it is (and the PMC is not secretive or a group of friends either, for that matter!) Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
I'll ask one more time. What action is expected here on dev@ to impact how the PMC uses private@ ? I can't speak to what the volumes of private@ messages are without knowing what those discussions were. In the cases I have seen since I joined the PMC in February, discussions that should be here have ended up here. It is not unusual for something that starts legitimately on private@ to advance to something that should be brought to dev@. It perhaps could have started on dev@ but didn't. Once it starts on private@ it sometimes takes a little thrashing around before we catch ourselves and the topic is reframed in a form for dev@ (i.e., without breaking confidences). There is no way for dev@ subscribers who are not on the PMC to know there are discussions that should be on dev@ yet remain on private@. The PMC has to police itself. Any one of us can declare here that inappropriate use of private@ is happening, but anyone not on private@ has no means to assess the facts and determine how serious it might be in any particular case. - Dennis -Original Message- From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2015 10:03 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org Subject: Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update On Saturday, March 7, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I am not certain exactly what issue is proposed to be discussed here. > > If you mean the over-use of private@ by the PMC, is there an issue to > discuss? Those of us on the PMC need to be attentive to minimizing private@ > discussions and bring to dev@ every discussion that is not one of the > special cases requiring discreet usage of private@. > > Talking about it here doesn't seem necessary. Who would disagree? Those > of us with PMC accountability need to make it so. It is expected of all > PMCs. Well look at the numbers, I did not publish the numbers for 2014, but you will see a high number of mails on private@ so it seems that not all agree to keep private@ low. [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
On 07/03/2015 jan i wrote: On 7 March 2015 at 01:55, Simon Phipps wrote: On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: 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! Well, I simply opened the list archives at http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.ooo-dev then searched for "api list moderators" and clicked on the first (oldest) result. This is very easy. 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. Very exaggerated tones. Just go back to see that Kay posted the first message (and this was a mistake, promptly rectified) to both the dev and private list. People answered where they happened to read the message first. By the way, I had suggested on this list to remove the names (for no other reasons that the list is simply unmaintainable as it is now, and an outdated list serves no purpose). There were no vetoes or any other bad or secret behavior. Simply, the issue is very minor, regarded by almost everybody as minor and it's better to go for the most maintainable solution. I proposed an approach that still allows to see the moderators' names in real time, while not imposing to us the burden to update a static web page every time a change is done. The Apache Way is always honored at OpenOffice. It begs the question why that reaction happened. I for sure would have dismissed the issue saying that it is useless work to maintain a separate list. And nothing else. long discussions which could just as well be public. I am convinced that the PMC is NOT doing this on purpose, but simply because they forget. That is a sane approach to the issue. Yes, I will answer to the thread wherever it is. This particular discussion was for no reason sent to both dev and private and I replied to it here and there. Without disclosing content here are some interesting numbers: private@aoo compared to dev@aoo March: 53 on private@, 93 on dev@ Feb: 347 on private@, 400 on dev@ Jan: 111 on private@, 542 on dev@ I'll answer this in the new thread, but people who are always assuming we have fantastic secrets to discuss on the private list would be very amused (except conspiracy theorists, who would be disappointed) if they saw the real messages! Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
On Saturday, March 7, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I am not certain exactly what issue is proposed to be discussed here. > > If you mean the over-use of private@ by the PMC, is there an issue to > discuss? Those of us on the PMC need to be attentive to minimizing private@ > discussions and bring to dev@ every discussion that is not one of the > special cases requiring discreet usage of private@. > > Talking about it here doesn't seem necessary. Who would disagree? Those > of us with PMC accountability need to make it so. It is expected of all > PMCs. Well look at the numbers, I did not publish the numbers for 2014, but you will see a high number of mails on private@ so it seems that not all agree to keep private@ low. > > - Dennis > > More background, since volumes of private@ usage have been presented. > > There are two matters that have been brought here recently although they > had wandered in and out of private@: > >1. The changes to the PMC FAQ, involving a small comedy of errors (my > synopsis) >2. The concerns about the openoffice.org/why page on the cost of > compliance > which also involved the Legal list and some private@ chiding by ASF > officials > > The other major sources of recent volume on private@ involved private > matters. Sometimes these are resolved entirely without any public > discussion (e.g., handling a request for or dealing with an issue about > trademark usage, votes to add new committers and/or PMC members). If you say so, I will not comment on the content on private@ but merely say I highly disagree with you...or you have quite a different level of what is private than I have. > > Generally, sometimes there is a privately-raised concern that is discussed > until it is noticed that it has turned into a discussion that belongs on > dev@ and not private@. It would be good to catch those earlier. It is > up to the PMC to be vigilant and execute on those. Exactly, the 2 examples you mention are good examples of something that should have been publicbut did it happen not really, look at the number of mails on the 2 issues that alone tell a story. > > Anything that involves policies impacting the project itself clearly must > come to dev@ if there is ever any sort of proposition that involves > conduct of the project and alignment of the community. A variety of > privately-raised concerns simply come and go, however, even if there is a > significant flurry of discussion at first. > > There are some routine items that arise from time to time on private@ but > do not seem to introduce any major spurt in volume. > > With regard to the relative silence of other PMCs, I suggest that Apache > OpenOffice has much greater reach into diverse communities and > corresponding areas of concern compared to many Apache projects. We are > not homogenous and we deal with many levels of participation and direction, > much simply on account of the magnitude of the software, the sites, the > intended users, and the history. We could be not so driven although I > expect that would not resonate on dev@, user@, or the forums. I did not talk about relative silence of PMC, but of committer and contributors. rgds jan i > > -Original Message- > From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org ] > Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2015 01:11 > To: jan i > Cc: dev > Subject: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: > PMC FAQ update > > Just realized, that many might jump over the old subject. > > This issue is an important issue and should not be hidden behind another > subject. > > rgds > jan i. > > [ ... ] > > You are opening a very important issue here. This moderator subject was, > > but should never have been discussed in private. > > > > During my first round as PMC, and now in my second round, I can see the > > private@ is being wrongly used (in my opinion, with my PMC hat on) to > > have long discussions which could just as well be public. I am convinced > > that the PMC is NOT doing this on purpose, but simply because they > forget. > > > > Without disclosing content here are some interesting numbers: > > private@aoo compared to dev@aoo > > March: 53 on private@, 93 on dev@ > > Feb: 347 on private@, 400 on dev@ > > Jan: 111 on private@, 542 on dev@ > > > > Numbers are taken from the mail archives, and might be off by a couple. > > > > I am a member of several projects and it is fair to say that none of the > > other private lists I follow have a similar relationship. Typically > private@ > > in the projects I follow count for 5-10% of the mails. > > > > I agree with Simon that we have a community issue here (t
RE: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
I am not certain exactly what issue is proposed to be discussed here. If you mean the over-use of private@ by the PMC, is there an issue to discuss? Those of us on the PMC need to be attentive to minimizing private@ discussions and bring to dev@ every discussion that is not one of the special cases requiring discreet usage of private@. Talking about it here doesn't seem necessary. Who would disagree? Those of us with PMC accountability need to make it so. It is expected of all PMCs. - Dennis More background, since volumes of private@ usage have been presented. There are two matters that have been brought here recently although they had wandered in and out of private@: 1. The changes to the PMC FAQ, involving a small comedy of errors (my synopsis) 2. The concerns about the openoffice.org/why page on the cost of compliance which also involved the Legal list and some private@ chiding by ASF officials The other major sources of recent volume on private@ involved private matters. Sometimes these are resolved entirely without any public discussion (e.g., handling a request for or dealing with an issue about trademark usage, votes to add new committers and/or PMC members). Generally, sometimes there is a privately-raised concern that is discussed until it is noticed that it has turned into a discussion that belongs on dev@ and not private@. It would be good to catch those earlier. It is up to the PMC to be vigilant and execute on those. Anything that involves policies impacting the project itself clearly must come to dev@ if there is ever any sort of proposition that involves conduct of the project and alignment of the community. A variety of privately-raised concerns simply come and go, however, even if there is a significant flurry of discussion at first. There are some routine items that arise from time to time on private@ but do not seem to introduce any major spurt in volume. With regard to the relative silence of other PMCs, I suggest that Apache OpenOffice has much greater reach into diverse communities and corresponding areas of concern compared to many Apache projects. We are not homogenous and we deal with many levels of participation and direction, much simply on account of the magnitude of the software, the sites, the intended users, and the history. We could be not so driven although I expect that would not resonate on dev@, user@, or the forums. -Original Message- From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2015 01:11 To: jan i Cc: dev Subject: community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update Just realized, that many might jump over the old subject. This issue is an important issue and should not be hidden behind another subject. rgds jan i. [ ... ] > You are opening a very important issue here. This moderator subject was, > but should never have been discussed in private. > > During my first round as PMC, and now in my second round, I can see the > private@ is being wrongly used (in my opinion, with my PMC hat on) to > have long discussions which could just as well be public. I am convinced > that the PMC is NOT doing this on purpose, but simply because they forget. > > Without disclosing content here are some interesting numbers: > private@aoo compared to dev@aoo > March: 53 on private@, 93 on dev@ > Feb: 347 on private@, 400 on dev@ > Jan: 111 on private@, 542 on dev@ > > Numbers are taken from the mail archives, and might be off by a couple. > > I am a member of several projects and it is fair to say that none of the > other private lists I follow have a similar relationship. Typically private@ > in the projects I follow count for 5-10% of the mails. > > I agree with Simon that we have a community issue here (thanks Simon for > pointing it out, I had not made the connection between moderators and the > use of private@) > > Some of the PMC are trying to stop the mail flood and remind the PMC group > to make the thread publicly, but it seems to be something that takes time. > I for one will do, as I did in the beginning of this thread (and got quite > flamed for it) disclose my own opinion and as much as I can from private@ > without breaking the rules. > > I believe it is high time to discuss this issue openly...and hopefully not > only contributors but also comitters will raise their voice. > > rgds > jan I. > > > S. >> > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
community communication versus private PMC communication, WAS: PMC FAQ update
Just realized, that many might jump over the old subject. This issue is an important issue and should not be hidden behind another subject. rgds jan i. On 7 March 2015 at 10:03, jan i wrote: > > > On 7 March 2015 at 01:55, Simon Phipps wrote: > >> 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. >> > > You are opening a very important issue here. This moderator subject was, > but should never have been discussed in private. > > During my first round as PMC, and now in my second round, I can see the > private@ is being wrongly used (in my opinion, with my PMC hat on) to > have long discussions which could just as well be public. I am convinced > that the PMC is NOT doing this on purpose, but simply because they forget. > > Without disclosing content here are some interesting numbers: > private@aoo compared to dev@aoo > March: 53 on private@, 93 on dev@ > Feb: 347 on private@, 400 on dev@ > Jan: 111 on private@, 542 on dev@ > > Numbers are taken from the mail archives, and might be off by a couple. > > I am a member of several projects and it is fair to say that none of the > other private lists I follow have a similar relationship. Typically private@ > in the projects I follow count for 5-10% of the mails. > > I agree with Simon that we have a community issue here (thanks Simon for > pointing it out, I had not made the connection between moderators and the > use of private@) > > Some of the PMC are trying to stop the mail flood and remind the PMC group > to make the thread publicly, but it seems to be something that takes time. > I for one will do, as I did in the beginning of this thread (and got quite > flamed for it) disclose my own opinion and as much as I can from private@ > without breaking the rules. > > I believe it is high time to discuss this issue openly...and hopefully not > only contributors but also comitters will raise their voice. > > rgds > jan I. > > > S. >> > >
Re: PMC FAQ update
On 7 March 2015 at 01:55, Simon Phipps wrote: > 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. > You are opening a very important issue here. This moderator subject was, but should never have been discussed in private. During my first round as PMC, and now in my second round, I can see the private@ is being wrongly used (in my opinion, with my PMC hat on) to have long discussions which could just as well be public. I am convinced that the PMC is NOT doing this on purpose, but simply because they forget. Without disclosing content here are some interesting numbers: private@aoo compared to dev@aoo March: 53 on private@, 93 on dev@ Feb: 347 on private@, 400 on dev@ Jan: 111 on private@, 542 on dev@ Numbers are taken from the mail archives, and might be off by a couple. I am a member of several projects and it is fair to say that none of the other private lists I follow have a similar relationship. Typically private@ in the projects I follow count for 5-10% of the mails. I agree with Simon that we have a community issue here (thanks Simon for pointing it out, I had not made the connection between moderators and the use of private@) Some of the PMC are trying to stop the mail flood and remind the PMC group to make the thread publicly, but it seems to be something that takes time. I for one will do, as I did in the beginning of this thread (and got quite flamed for it) disclose my own opinion and as much as I can from private@ without breaking the rules. I believe it is high time to discuss this issue openly...and hopefully not only contributors but also comitters will raise their voice. rgds jan I. S. >
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: 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: 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: 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
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.
Re: PMC FAQ update
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-- [1] Put moderators on the Project mailing list page. [2] Add a new cwiki page under Directory of Volunteers listing mailing list moderators (easier to change but that could be a problem) 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
Re: PMC FAQ update
On Thursday, March 5, 2015, Dave Barton wrote: > jan i wrote: > > On Thursday, March 5, 2015, Dave Barton > > wrote: > > > >> 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. > >>> > >>> Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish > the > >>> individual names. > >>> > >>> rgds > >>> jan i. > >> > >> With the exception of a couple of pseudonyms (real names known > >> internally), every Apache committer's name is published: > >> https://people.apache.org/committer-index.html > > > > yeah but that does not tell which mailing lists we listen in on and a lot > > of other things we do, it does e,g. not tell that I am AOO Chair. > > Rubbish! Another public page: > https://people.apache.org/committer-index.html#jani > Clearly and unequivocally states: > jani Jan Iversen corinthia, incubator, incubator-pmc, > infrastructure, infrastructure-interest, labs, labs-pmc, member, > openoffice, openoffice-pmc, pmc-chairs, tac-pmc > > See also: > https://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#pmc-chairs > > Sorry, but I don't get your point about "which mailing lists we listen > in on and a lot of other things we do". Who cares, but you make it > sounds like you have something to hide. Also, who are "we" in this > context, PMC members, project members, or everybody? > > >> > >> Our "Mailing List" page states: > >> Each mailing list at OpenOffice has at least two human > moderators. > >> > >> Without referring to "private" information you or the PMC may hold tell > >> me (off-list if you wish) who the TWO moderators are for the API mailing > >> list? > >> > >> Are we ashamed of who we are and what we do? > > > > no way, but this is simply an information that has no relevance in my > > opinion. > > > > 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. > > It was published for years, so why now do we have something to hide? > > > 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 > > Again, I don't understand "forced to participate". Nobody is forced to > participate in this project by simply identifying the role they have > volunteered to undertake. > > Your concerns are unfounded, Simon Phipps, myself and other moderators > openly publish our identities and email addresses on this list and other > public forums, so why would we become delicate sensitive little things > about our names being published for a useful purpose. > > Cut to the chase: > You did not answer my question about the names of the TWO moderators for > our API mailing list because: > 1. You don't know. correct, it is not my job to know that. rgds jan i > 2. There is only ONE moderator for that list. > 3. This information is not publicly available. > > My reason for persisting with this somewhat trivial issue is that "we" > (those with an interest in project at large, not just Infra, the PMC, or > some other "sacred inner sanctum") would not have a ready source of > reference if moderation, for whatever reason, ceased. Unlikely in the > case of the dev list, but a definite possibility for the API list if the > one current moderator got run over by a bus. > > If it will alleviate your concerns, I will post to the owner of each of > our public lists asking for an affirmative response to the question of > publishing moderator names on the mailing list page. > > See also the post from Dennis, who summarises this in more succinct and > less abrasive terms. > > >> > > Thanks, > > S. > > [1]: http://markmail.org/thread/l4yjh7gcgk5k6ist > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apa
Re: PMC FAQ update
jan i wrote: > On Thursday, March 5, 2015, Dave Barton wrote: > >> 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. >>> >>> Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish the >>> individual names. >>> >>> rgds >>> jan i. >> >> With the exception of a couple of pseudonyms (real names known >> internally), every Apache committer's name is published: >> https://people.apache.org/committer-index.html > > yeah but that does not tell which mailing lists we listen in on and a lot > of other things we do, it does e,g. not tell that I am AOO Chair. Rubbish! Another public page: https://people.apache.org/committer-index.html#jani Clearly and unequivocally states: jani Jan Iversen corinthia, incubator, incubator-pmc, infrastructure, infrastructure-interest, labs, labs-pmc, member, openoffice, openoffice-pmc, pmc-chairs, tac-pmc See also: https://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#pmc-chairs Sorry, but I don't get your point about "which mailing lists we listen in on and a lot of other things we do". Who cares, but you make it sounds like you have something to hide. Also, who are "we" in this context, PMC members, project members, or everybody? >> >> Our "Mailing List" page states: >> Each mailing list at OpenOffice has at least two human moderators. >> >> Without referring to "private" information you or the PMC may hold tell >> me (off-list if you wish) who the TWO moderators are for the API mailing >> list? >> >> Are we ashamed of who we are and what we do? > > no way, but this is simply an information that has no relevance in my > opinion. > > 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. It was published for years, so why now do we have something to hide? > 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 Again, I don't understand "forced to participate". Nobody is forced to participate in this project by simply identifying the role they have volunteered to undertake. Your concerns are unfounded, Simon Phipps, myself and other moderators openly publish our identities and email addresses on this list and other public forums, so why would we become delicate sensitive little things about our names being published for a useful purpose. Cut to the chase: You did not answer my question about the names of the TWO moderators for our API mailing list because: 1. You don't know. 2. There is only ONE moderator for that list. 3. This information is not publicly available. My reason for persisting with this somewhat trivial issue is that "we" (those with an interest in project at large, not just Infra, the PMC, or some other "sacred inner sanctum") would not have a ready source of reference if moderation, for whatever reason, ceased. Unlikely in the case of the dev list, but a definite possibility for the API list if the one current moderator got run over by a bus. If it will alleviate your concerns, I will post to the owner of each of our public lists asking for an affirmative response to the question of publishing moderator names on the mailing list page. See also the post from Dennis, who summarises this in more succinct and less abrasive terms. >> Thanks, S. [1]: http://markmail.org/thread/l4yjh7gcgk5k6ist - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: PMC FAQ update
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 -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
Re: PMC FAQ update
On Thursday, March 5, 2015, Dave Barton wrote: > 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. > > > > Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish the > > individual names. > > > > rgds > > jan i. > > With the exception of a couple of pseudonyms (real names known > internally), every Apache committer's name is published: > https://people.apache.org/committer-index.html yeah but that does not tell which mailing lists we listen in on and a lot of other things we do, it does e,g. not tell that I am AOO Chair. > > Our "Mailing List" page states: > Each mailing list at OpenOffice has at least two human moderators. > > Without referring to "private" information you or the PMC may hold tell > me (off-list if you wish) who the TWO moderators are for the API mailing > list? > > Are we ashamed of who we are and what we do? no way, but this is simply an information that has no relevance in my opinion. 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 > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> S. > >> > >> [1]: http://markmail.org/thread/l4yjh7gcgk5k6ist > >> > > > > > - > 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.
Re: PMC FAQ update
> 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
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.
Re: PMC FAQ update
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. > > Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish the > individual names. > > rgds > jan i. With the exception of a couple of pseudonyms (real names known internally), every Apache committer's name is published: https://people.apache.org/committer-index.html Our "Mailing List" page states: Each mailing list at OpenOffice has at least two human moderators. Without referring to "private" information you or the PMC may hold tell me (off-list if you wish) who the TWO moderators are for the API mailing list? Are we ashamed of who we are and what we do? >> >> Thanks, >> >> S. >> >> [1]: http://markmail.org/thread/l4yjh7gcgk5k6ist >> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
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. Since we have and owner@ to every list, there are no need to publish the individual names. rgds jan i. > > Thanks, > > S. > > [1]: http://markmail.org/thread/l4yjh7gcgk5k6ist >
Re: PMC FAQ update
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? Thanks, S. [1]: http://markmail.org/thread/l4yjh7gcgk5k6ist
Re: PMC FAQ update
Kay Schenk wrote: > > > On 02/23/2015 02:17 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: >> >>> I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website. >>> >>> Please let us know if there are further changes to the persons listed as >>> e-mail moderators, wiki admins, or anything else. >>> >> >> I'm pretty sure there are others - I moderate users@ and marketing@ daily >> for example. > > Thanks for the response. I will add you as a moderator for users and > marketing. 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 ? > Or is that page only supposed to list PMC members in those >> roles? >> >> S. > > I think "originally" only PMC members were in these roles, and that is > why the wording might is a bit odd. But, things have changed in this > regard. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: PMC FAQ update
Is there a reason why this mail is sent to both dev@ and private@ ? Mixing private and public mail lists is not really a good thing. rgds jan i On Monday, February 23, 2015, Kay Schenk wrote: > I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website. > > Please let us know if there are further changes to the persons listed as > e-mail moderators, wiki admins, or anything else. > > Thanks. > > -- > - > 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.
Re: PMC FAQ update
On Monday, February 23, 2015, Kay Schenk wrote: > I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website. > > Please let us know if there are further changes to the persons listed as > e-mail moderators, wiki admins, or anything else. > > Thanks. > > -- > - > 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.
Re: PMC FAQ update
On 02/23/2015 02:17 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > >> I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website. >> >> Please let us know if there are further changes to the persons listed as >> e-mail moderators, wiki admins, or anything else. >> > > I'm pretty sure there are others - I moderate users@ and marketing@ daily > for example. Thanks for the response. I will add you as a moderator for users and marketing. Or is that page only supposed to list PMC members in those > roles? > > S. I think "originally" only PMC members were in these roles, and that is why the wording might is a bit odd. But, things have changed in this regard. > -- - 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 Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website. > > Please let us know if there are further changes to the persons listed as > e-mail moderators, wiki admins, or anything else. > I'm pretty sure there are others - I moderate users@ and marketing@ daily for example. Or is that page only supposed to list PMC members in those roles? S.
PMC FAQ update
I just updated the PMC FAQ page on the project website. Please let us know if there are further changes to the persons listed as e-mail moderators, wiki admins, or anything else. Thanks. -- - 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
