RE: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

For the record, I am in complete accord with the outcome and how Andrea is 
moving his recommendation for new Chair forward to the ASF Board.  I shall 
continue as a contributor. I look forward to our moving forward on Andrea's 
Priority #2 proposal.

I have no interpretation to offer concerning details of the [VOTE] and the 
quantitative outcome.  My only observations is that the cast votes are what 
they were (and what votes not cast were not) and the outcome is what it is.  
Elections are like that, to the bemusement of all [;<).

-Original Message-
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2015 02:24
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

Peter Junge wrote:
> What is the conclusion of this vote? As far as I understand the Apache
> philosophy, such votes are no majority votes but consensus is the goal.

Conclusion is that Jan is the person I will recommend for replacing me. 
The vote outcome determines the new Chair.

> A a considerable and easy way out might be a
> double chair with both Jan and Dennis; especially they also seem to have
> complementary skills.

We have one Chair. And it will be Jan. Of course, it's natural to think 
that Dennis can/will have a major role in the project. This is the duty 
of PMC members. And it can be done without any formal titles (a thing 
that I'm sure neither Dennis or Jan are attached to). So it's totally 
welcome for me to see Jan, Dennis AND ALL OF US work together and help 
in different project areas.

Regards,
   Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[Andrea Pescetti]

Peter Junge wrote:

What is the conclusion of this vote? As far as I understand the Apache
philosophy, such votes are no majority votes but consensus is the goal.


Conclusion is that Jan is the person I will recommend for replacing me. 
The vote outcome determines the new Chair.



A a considerable and easy way out might be a
double chair with both Jan and Dennis; especially they also seem to have
complementary skills.


We have one Chair. And it will be Jan. Of course, it's natural to think 
that Dennis can/will have a major role in the project. This is the duty 
of PMC members. And it can be done without any formal titles (a thing 
that I'm sure neither Dennis or Jan are attached to). So it's totally 
welcome for me to see Jan, Dennis AND ALL OF US work together and help 
in different project areas.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[Andrea Pescetti]

Il 20/01/2015 00:29, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:

On 19 Jan 2015, at 13:32, Kay Schenk wrote:
I am probably seeming very disagreeable here.

... Andrea and others believe that the election
process has proceeded as it ought to have, with enough time allowed
for discussion and then vote. But you argue the contrary, and it
seems that a couple of others share your views.


Just a note on this (dead) discussion: I'm not planning any discussion 
time between the end of (self-)nominations and the start of the vote. If 
you believe that a dedicated discussion phase must really be added, 
please request it now rather than complaining later. I know it would be 
"just three more days", but I'm not willing to allocate them unless 
someone takes the responsibility to request them (and, ideally, ensure 
productivity of the discussion).



The sequence I envisioned was: A. Election; B. PMC
re-evaluation; C. New election if need be or is desired. There is no
absolute set term for the chair.


This is now known as action #1 and #2. And indeed this is the way to go 
(except that I wouldn't like to see a re-election in one month, since we 
take more than one month to elect a Chair).



Finally, I also felt that Andrea wanted to step down and do it before
February. But as he's recently underscored, he's not working on a
deadline, just a desire.


As things are now, and with a nominations round open, it is likely that 
we manage to choose my successor in time for the February Board meeting. 
If we manage to start a vote, I'll probably accompany it with a 
statement saying that it is not an option that I extend my term once again.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[Marcus]

The same for me. I also think Louis could do the job - also because of 
his past.


Marcus



Am 01/20/2015 11:42 AM, schrieb Ian Lynch:

My view is more positive. Louis has at least one thing in his favour - long
term experience. Also I think he has a clear track record of commitment to
the project in difficult times. I have had differences with him in the
past, but I think that is just part of any pluralist system. I don't
particularly want to be in a situation where everyone has to agree with
everyone. What matters is matching experience and expertise to the job and
the evidence is he knows this job is different from the previous community
manager job he had with Sun. For a start he isn't getting paid to do it
now.

On 20 January 2015 at 09:32, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:


On 20/01/15 00:29, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:



On 19 Jan 2015, at 13:32, Kay Schenk  wrote:

I am probably seeming very disagreeable here.

Nope. You'll have to try harder :-)

More seriously, you point to a flaw that was not evident on an abstract

level but was in practice. I had an IM conversation with Andrea over the
weekend, where I proposed that I withdraw my nomination, as having several
-1 obviously damaged the ideal of consensus. An objection to my doing that
now is that it's not clear what would be gained. Andrea and others believe
that the election process has proceeded as it ought to have, with enough
time allowed for discussion and then vote. But you argue the contrary, and
it seems that a couple of others share your views.


I have no problems withdrawing my candidacy and asking for new round.

But I do want to point out a couple of things. 1. The chair role is not at
all like that of OpenOffice.org, itself a kind of blur. This role is far
more precisely defined and is an admin role. It actually rather resembles
some of what I did while at CollabNet, and that included a lot of issue
cleaning, tracking, infra stuff, permissions management, and so on. That I
see some value beyond this is my take on it; as you know, Jan, for
instance, has another. 2. I thought that the PMC could be reevaluated,
though I'm by no means sure in what way, exactly. But I don't need to be;
others have good ideas, I believe, or at least ideas that could be aired. I
thought, and I think I was not alone in in this, that any re-doing of the
PMC, however, should logically proceed *after* the election, as the
candidate is elected by the binding votes of those making up the existing
PMC. The sequence I envisioned was: A. Election; B. P
  M
C re-evaluation; C. New election if need be or is desired. There is no
absolute set term for the chair.


Finally, I also felt that Andrea wanted to step down and do it before

February. But as he's recently underscored, he's not working on a deadline,
just a desire.


All that said, if we do want to go with a new round, starting from

scratch, then suggest a sequence and timing. Personally, it might be
cleaner—and also save time, in the end, to wait out this round, and if it
failed as an election, *then* start afresh. In this event, then we'd start
with the new process next week, I'd guess.




sorry for not answering earlier but I was on vacation and missed the
whole discussion ...

I will not vote right now because I believe the currently ongoing vote
shows already a clear signal. Well it is up to Louis to interpret the -1
votes on his own but I personally believe that Louis with his long
history as community manager (how it was called) is somewhat negative
contaminated and I believe he won't be the right PMC chair for the moment.

I propose a second round with hopefully more nominated candidates and it
is not necessary to have a long history in AOO. Just keep in mind the
role of the PMC and think if you can manage it. If you are motivated to
do it and help the project to move forward.

This is my personal opinion only

Juergen


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[Louis Suárez-Potts]

Briefly, 
> On 20 Jan 2015, at 05:42, Ian Lynch  wrote:
> 
> My view is more positive. Louis has at least one thing in his favour - long
> term experience. Also I think he has a clear track record of commitment to
> the project in difficult times. I have had differences with him in the
> past, but I think that is just part of any pluralist system. I don't
> particularly want to be in a situation where everyone has to agree with
> everyone. What matters is matching experience and expertise to the job and
> the evidence is he knows this job is different from the previous community
> manager job he had with Sun. For a start he isn't getting paid to do it
> now.
> 

Thanks, Ian. Note, I stopped disagreeing with Ian a decade ago. :-) And, in 
fact, I am rather impressed with the success of his efforts and his great 
optimism. And, yeah, my participation with AOO is now and likely will be for 
the foreseeable future as a volunteer. I get no money out of the time I spend 
boring the readers of this.

But I really need to underscore what we are voting on (or for) here. Strictly 
defined, this chair position is basically an admin role, and that, as part of 
its admin function, it does routine Apache things: reports, most obviously, but 
also infra stuff, as well as ensuring the execution of AOO's policies, and so 
on. It also—and this is probably more important—the speaker to Apache for AOO. 
(That itself does not mean much. But AOO remains a bit of an enigma, as it is 
so enduser focused.) Most importantly, it's not a "leadership" position. There 
is no "project lead." To imagine it otherwise is to be mistaken. (It is in part 
for this reason I surmise that Andrea has always stated that what he does—and 
the PMC, too—as representing the community, not leading it.)

I can see why a longstanding (and former colleague) developer like Juergen 
would feel that the past I carry (as does he, as do we all) would affect the 
Chair's effectiveness. But that would presume that the role is anything other 
than that stipulated, which would mean it presumes that the PMC has implicitly 
already granted enhanced status to the chair. /laugh/

To restate, I think we need an admin to do admin and Apache things. More 
personally, I also think we need to reach out to developers and their companies 
and government offices; and to see about collaboration, if possible and perhaps 
in only narrow ways, with TDF and LO. I find it insane that the division 
persists. But that's not at issue here.

I would have been delighted to have seen a fresh face from the PMC roster stand 
for election. But …? Most on it, most who have voted so far, are holdovers, 
like me, from OOo, or comparative newbies like Rob and Dennis, who have long 
been involved in ODF issues. The absence of new people casting binding votes 
leads me to wonder: What could we do to find new contributors we'd be willing 
to make PMC members? What are we doing now? Even more, what are doing to extend 
the ecosystem? Outside of the work Ian and Alexandro are doing—what?

louis

PS I had earlier written that Jan and I differed in our take on what the chair 
position was about. Jan chided me on this point privately. But we have no 
differences in reading the description of the role. Our only difference lies in 
how we would like to leverage the role. He has better connections within Apache 
than I do, and that's important. I have better connections with many of the 
sectors using OpenOffice outside of Apache, and with the remnants of the 
ecosystem that existed for OOo, and my idea was to leverage the position of 
chair to promote AOO among those hundreds of millions (or a handful)—and to 
frame "promote" as meaning as much to get new developers as to get new users. 
But, of course, that's entirely up to the PMC to enable.

PPS, no doubt, Jan will again privately chide me for misrepresenting his views. 
:-)

> On 20 January 2015 at 09:32, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> 
>> On 20/01/15 00:29, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>> 
 On 19 Jan 2015, at 13:32, Kay Schenk  wrote:
 
 I am probably seeming very disagreeable here.
>>> Nope. You'll have to try harder :-)
>>> 
>>> More seriously, you point to a flaw that was not evident on an abstract
>> level but was in practice. I had an IM conversation with Andrea over the
>> weekend, where I proposed that I withdraw my nomination, as having several
>> -1 obviously damaged the ideal of consensus. An objection to my doing that
>> now is that it's not clear what would be gained. Andrea and others believe
>> that the election process has proceeded as it ought to have, with enough
>> time allowed for discussion and then vote. But you argue the contrary, and
>> it seems that a couple of others share your views.
>>> 
>>> I have no problems withdrawing my candidacy and asking for new round.
>> But I do want to point out a couple of things. 1. The chair role is not at
>> all like that of OpenOffice.org, itself a kind of blur. This role is far
>> more

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[Ian Lynch]

My view is more positive. Louis has at least one thing in his favour - long
term experience. Also I think he has a clear track record of commitment to
the project in difficult times. I have had differences with him in the
past, but I think that is just part of any pluralist system. I don't
particularly want to be in a situation where everyone has to agree with
everyone. What matters is matching experience and expertise to the job and
the evidence is he knows this job is different from the previous community
manager job he had with Sun. For a start he isn't getting paid to do it
now.

On 20 January 2015 at 09:32, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:

> On 20/01/15 00:29, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> >
> >> On 19 Jan 2015, at 13:32, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> >>
> >> I am probably seeming very disagreeable here.
> > Nope. You'll have to try harder :-)
> >
> > More seriously, you point to a flaw that was not evident on an abstract
> level but was in practice. I had an IM conversation with Andrea over the
> weekend, where I proposed that I withdraw my nomination, as having several
> -1 obviously damaged the ideal of consensus. An objection to my doing that
> now is that it's not clear what would be gained. Andrea and others believe
> that the election process has proceeded as it ought to have, with enough
> time allowed for discussion and then vote. But you argue the contrary, and
> it seems that a couple of others share your views.
> >
> > I have no problems withdrawing my candidacy and asking for new round.
> But I do want to point out a couple of things. 1. The chair role is not at
> all like that of OpenOffice.org, itself a kind of blur. This role is far
> more precisely defined and is an admin role. It actually rather resembles
> some of what I did while at CollabNet, and that included a lot of issue
> cleaning, tracking, infra stuff, permissions management, and so on. That I
> see some value beyond this is my take on it; as you know, Jan, for
> instance, has another. 2. I thought that the PMC could be reevaluated,
> though I'm by no means sure in what way, exactly. But I don't need to be;
> others have good ideas, I believe, or at least ideas that could be aired. I
> thought, and I think I was not alone in in this, that any re-doing of the
> PMC, however, should logically proceed *after* the election, as the
> candidate is elected by the binding votes of those making up the existing
> PMC. The sequence I envisioned was: A. Election; B. P
>  M
> C re-evaluation; C. New election if need be or is desired. There is no
> absolute set term for the chair.
> >
> > Finally, I also felt that Andrea wanted to step down and do it before
> February. But as he's recently underscored, he's not working on a deadline,
> just a desire.
> >
> > All that said, if we do want to go with a new round, starting from
> scratch, then suggest a sequence and timing. Personally, it might be
> cleaner—and also save time, in the end, to wait out this round, and if it
> failed as an election, *then* start afresh. In this event, then we'd start
> with the new process next week, I'd guess.
> >
>
> sorry for not answering earlier but I was on vacation and missed the
> whole discussion ...
>
> I will not vote right now because I believe the currently ongoing vote
> shows already a clear signal. Well it is up to Louis to interpret the -1
> votes on his own but I personally believe that Louis with his long
> history as community manager (how it was called) is somewhat negative
> contaminated and I believe he won't be the right PMC chair for the moment.
>
> I propose a second round with hopefully more nominated candidates and it
> is not necessary to have a long history in AOO. Just keep in mind the
> role of the PMC and think if you can manage it. If you are motivated to
> do it and help the project to move forward.
>
> This is my personal opinion only
>
> Juergen
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited Qualifications


Headline points in the 2014, 2015, 2016 school league tables

Baseline testing and progress measures


The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield
Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No:
05560797, Registered in England and Wales. +44 (0)1827 305940

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 20/01/15 00:29, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> 
>> On 19 Jan 2015, at 13:32, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>>
>> I am probably seeming very disagreeable here.
> Nope. You'll have to try harder :-) 
> 
> More seriously, you point to a flaw that was not evident on an abstract level 
> but was in practice. I had an IM conversation with Andrea over the weekend, 
> where I proposed that I withdraw my nomination, as having several -1 
> obviously damaged the ideal of consensus. An objection to my doing that now 
> is that it's not clear what would be gained. Andrea and others believe that 
> the election process has proceeded as it ought to have, with enough time 
> allowed for discussion and then vote. But you argue the contrary, and it 
> seems that a couple of others share your views.
> 
> I have no problems withdrawing my candidacy and asking for new round. But I 
> do want to point out a couple of things. 1. The chair role is not at all like 
> that of OpenOffice.org, itself a kind of blur. This role is far more 
> precisely defined and is an admin role. It actually rather resembles some of 
> what I did while at CollabNet, and that included a lot of issue cleaning, 
> tracking, infra stuff, permissions management, and so on. That I see some 
> value beyond this is my take on it; as you know, Jan, for instance, has 
> another. 2. I thought that the PMC could be reevaluated, though I'm by no 
> means sure in what way, exactly. But I don't need to be; others have good 
> ideas, I believe, or at least ideas that could be aired. I thought, and I 
> think I was not alone in in this, that any re-doing of the PMC, however, 
> should logically proceed *after* the election, as the candidate is elected by 
> the binding votes of those making up the existing PMC. The sequence I 
> envisioned was: A. Election; B. P
 M
C re-evaluation; C. New election if need be or is desired. There is no absolute 
set term for the chair. 
> 
> Finally, I also felt that Andrea wanted to step down and do it before 
> February. But as he's recently underscored, he's not working on a deadline, 
> just a desire. 
> 
> All that said, if we do want to go with a new round, starting from scratch, 
> then suggest a sequence and timing. Personally, it might be cleaner—and also 
> save time, in the end, to wait out this round, and if it failed as an 
> election, *then* start afresh. In this event, then we'd start with the new 
> process next week, I'd guess. 
> 

sorry for not answering earlier but I was on vacation and missed the
whole discussion ...

I will not vote right now because I believe the currently ongoing vote
shows already a clear signal. Well it is up to Louis to interpret the -1
votes on his own but I personally believe that Louis with his long
history as community manager (how it was called) is somewhat negative
contaminated and I believe he won't be the right PMC chair for the moment.

I propose a second round with hopefully more nominated candidates and it
is not necessary to have a long history in AOO. Just keep in mind the
role of the PMC and think if you can manage it. If you are motivated to
do it and help the project to move forward.

This is my personal opinion only

Juergen



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[Ian Lynch]

+1

On 19 January 2015 at 00:27, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:

> On 17/01/2015 Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> It's true the two last nominees -- Jan and Louis -- did discuss their
>> views at length, but there was not really much discussion on the
>> selections from this list. Contrast this from the discussions that
>> preceded the nominations for the initial PMC chair --
>> http://markmail.org/message/fj3ih654amdw4fmg
>>
>
> The issue was more lack of discussion than lack of time. We allocated much
> more time than we did in 2012 to each one of the phases (nominations,
> discussion, vote). Nobody can say that we didn't encourage participation.
> We didn't have a lot of participation, but there were no obstacles
> whatsoever to it.
>
>  Finally, I do hope Andrea might stay on for a bit
>> longer while we come to a consensus.
>>
>
> I gave my availability to resign "as soon as a successor can be elected",
> so I'm here in the meantime. Of course, I expected and still expect this to
> happen within a reasonable time!
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited Qualifications


Headline points in the 2014, 2015, 2016 school league tables

Baseline testing and progress measures


The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield
Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No:
05560797, Registered in England and Wales. +44 (0)1827 305940

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[Louis Suárez-Potts]

> On 19 Jan 2015, at 13:32, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> 
> I am probably seeming very disagreeable here.
Nope. You'll have to try harder :-) 

More seriously, you point to a flaw that was not evident on an abstract level 
but was in practice. I had an IM conversation with Andrea over the weekend, 
where I proposed that I withdraw my nomination, as having several -1 obviously 
damaged the ideal of consensus. An objection to my doing that now is that it's 
not clear what would be gained. Andrea and others believe that the election 
process has proceeded as it ought to have, with enough time allowed for 
discussion and then vote. But you argue the contrary, and it seems that a 
couple of others share your views.

I have no problems withdrawing my candidacy and asking for new round. But I do 
want to point out a couple of things. 1. The chair role is not at all like that 
of OpenOffice.org, itself a kind of blur. This role is far more precisely 
defined and is an admin role. It actually rather resembles some of what I did 
while at CollabNet, and that included a lot of issue cleaning, tracking, infra 
stuff, permissions management, and so on. That I see some value beyond this is 
my take on it; as you know, Jan, for instance, has another. 2. I thought that 
the PMC could be reevaluated, though I'm by no means sure in what way, exactly. 
But I don't need to be; others have good ideas, I believe, or at least ideas 
that could be aired. I thought, and I think I was not alone in in this, that 
any re-doing of the PMC, however, should logically proceed *after* the 
election, as the candidate is elected by the binding votes of those making up 
the existing PMC. The sequence I envisioned was: A. Election; B. PMC 
re-evaluation; C. New election if need be or is desired. There is no absolute 
set term for the chair. 

Finally, I also felt that Andrea wanted to step down and do it before February. 
But as he's recently underscored, he's not working on a deadline, just a 
desire. 

All that said, if we do want to go with a new round, starting from scratch, 
then suggest a sequence and timing. Personally, it might be cleaner—and also 
save time, in the end, to wait out this round, and if it failed as an election, 
*then* start afresh. In this event, then we'd start with the new process next 
week, I'd guess. 

Best
louis
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[Kay Schenk]

On 01/18/2015 04:27 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 17/01/2015 Kay Schenk wrote:
>> It's true the two last nominees -- Jan and Louis -- did discuss their
>> views at length, but there was not really much discussion on the
>> selections from this list. Contrast this from the discussions that
>> preceded the nominations for the initial PMC chair --
>> http://markmail.org/message/fj3ih654amdw4fmg
> 
> The issue was more lack of discussion than lack of time. We allocated
> much more time than we did in 2012 to each one of the phases
> (nominations, discussion, vote). Nobody can say that we didn't encourage
> participation. We didn't have a lot of participation, but there were no
> obstacles whatsoever to it.

Dennis alluded to the fact that we did not discuss this singular last
candidate --

http://markmail.org/message/4j35qhttrtpgj2ug

Looking at the nomination e-mails, in my opinion, it seems that opinions
on  the nominees was only explicitly discussed by the nominees
themselves. So no obstacles to discussion by the community, but no
invitation for discussion either.

I am probably seeming very disagreeable here. But perhaps the complete
process was not clear.

> 
>> Finally, I do hope Andrea might stay on for a bit
>> longer while we come to a consensus.
> 
> I gave my availability to resign "as soon as a successor can be
> elected", so I'm here in the meantime. Of course, I expected and still
> expect this to happen within a reasonable time!
> 
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 

-- 
-
MzK

"There's a bit of magic in everything,
  and some loss to even things out."
-- Lou Reed

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 15/01/2015 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

I also think that there is a serious misunderstanding of
what it means to be PMC Chair.


I will comment on a few items only, merely for clarifying previous 
discussions. I think Dennis is right here, but I explained the Chair 
role at the beginning, I don't see it as a big transition in general. 
Chair duties are maybe 20% of what I do for the project, meaning that 
the remaining 80% is done as an ordinary committer.



I do think folks need to be clear that Andrea is leaving the Chair
position and he is perfectly capable of asking the ASF Board to replace
him if the Project is unable to do so. An offer to wait for a
replacement doesn't have to be on the table forever. Of course,
intervention by the Board invites all manner of unintended consequences,
and I would think there is enough sense of community to avoid that risk.


Yes, it's much better to find a solution (any solution) within the 
community; the Board is the last option.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Although Andrea had made clear what the timeline is, hindsight suggests that, 
once the fact of an unopposed candidate emerged, there probably was need for a 
[DISCUSS] about that singular situation, with more time before calling a vote 
or perhaps not even requiring a [VOTE].

Instead, we have this apparent demonstration of deep-seated disagreement in the 
community.

It is amazing, to me, that with only one person standing up and willing to take 
the job, that there are folks who apparently would rather not have a PMC Chair 
than have the only person willing to commit to the job.  I also think that 
there is a serious misunderstanding of what it means to be PMC Chair.

I'm certain there is more to it than that, and we'll learn more in the next few 
days.  

I do think folks need to be clear that Andrea is leaving the Chair position and 
he is perfectly capable of asking the ASF Board to replace him if the Project 
is unable to do so.  An offer to wait for a replacement doesn't have to be on 
the table forever.  Of course, intervention by the Board invites all manner of 
unintended consequences, and I would think there is enough sense of community 
to avoid that risk.  I suppose we'll see.

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:r...@robweir.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 06:06
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
[ ... ]
> Ultimately the +1, 0 or -1 is what counts, indeed.
>
> But in the case of a -1, an explanation is always helpful to understand
> what's wrong (wrong timing, and why? wrong person, and why? do you see an
> option we didn't consider, and which one?). So it is very common practice,
> unless it's clear from the previous discussion, to provide it. And I would
> personally find it very useful.
>

Exactly.   That's why we have a discussion prior to a vote, to raise
issues and try to resolve them.   In most cases it is unusual to see a
-1 from someone who never mentioned any concern in the discussions.
Or are PMC Chair votes different?

-Rob


[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

 -- replying below to --
From: Michal Hriň [mailto:michal.h...@yahoo.com.INVALID] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 01:48
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

V Štvrtok, 15. január 2015 o 09:04 +0100, Andrea Pescetti napísal(a):
[ ... ]
> Procedural note: I didn't add it to my initial mail in order to keep it 
> short, but it is highly recommended that -1 votes be accompanied by a 
> brief motivation (1-2 lines), especially if you haven't participated in 
> the discussions so far. Knowing what is wrong can help a lot. This holds 
> for the -1 votes that have already been expressed too.
> 

Maybe I don't uderstad very well.

Let me express my frustration.

Andrea, you are active chair and member of ASF! (there is now place for
politness) Kick -off all PMCs and bring project to life !


   It is not in the power of the PMC Chair to expel members of the PMC.
   It might not even be in the power of the PMC to expel members. 
   Even if it were, it is not clear that the AOO PMC is capable of such
   a thing.


There are some people who still believes in project, but ...

Proble is not non active people, less releases or resources. Problem is
that every idea is killed. 

This vote was good idea but I thought that you will have disagreement or
not 3 binding votes.


   It seems to me, without any insight into the operation of the AOO PMC,
   That we may be seeing a failure of "community."  I also sense that there
   are different ideas about how work gets done, as if it can somehow be
   commanded (or prevented).
  The PMC Chair is not in a position to impact any dysfunctions
   by much (but would, ideally, not add to or cultivate them).
  There is work, at this moment, in establishing what is thought of
   as the Apache Project Maturity Model, a description of what a
   top-level project should have in its "DNA" as a sustained model 
   by the time it graduates from incubation.  It might be useful for those
   here to review that model and determine how willing they are to 
   operate by it in their conduct here.  See
   <https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApacheProjectMaturityModel>.
   This is discussed on the dev @ community.apache.org list.


Regards,

Michal Hriň


> Regards,
>Andrea.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[Rob Weir]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> O.Felka wrote:
>>
>> Am 15.01.2015 um 09:04 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>
>>> Procedural note: I didn't add it to my initial mail in order to keep it
>>> short, but it is highly recommended that -1 votes be accompanied by a
>>> brief motivation (1-2 lines), especially if you haven't participated in
>>> the discussions so far. Knowing what is wrong can help a lot. This holds
>>> for the -1 votes that have already been expressed too.
>>
>>
>> If this should be a vote no one has to argue for his decision.
>
>
> Ultimately the +1, 0 or -1 is what counts, indeed.
>
> But in the case of a -1, an explanation is always helpful to understand
> what's wrong (wrong timing, and why? wrong person, and why? do you see an
> option we didn't consider, and which one?). So it is very common practice,
> unless it's clear from the previous discussion, to provide it. And I would
> personally find it very useful.
>

Exactly.   That's why we have a discussion prior to a vote, to raise
issues and try to resolve them.   In most cases it is unusual to see a
-1 from someone who never mentioned any concern in the discussions.
Or are PMC Chair votes different?

-Rob


> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[Michal Hriň]

V Štvrtok, 15. január 2015 o 09:04 +0100, Andrea Pescetti napísal(a):
> On 15/01/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> > Do you approve that, in his capacity as the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair,
> > Andrea Pescetti submits a resolution to the Board asking to be replaced
> > by Louis Suárez-Potts as the Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair?
> > [ ] +1 Yes
> > [ ]  0 Abstain
> > [ ] -1 No
> 
> Procedural note: I didn't add it to my initial mail in order to keep it 
> short, but it is highly recommended that -1 votes be accompanied by a 
> brief motivation (1-2 lines), especially if you haven't participated in 
> the discussions so far. Knowing what is wrong can help a lot. This holds 
> for the -1 votes that have already been expressed too.
> 

Maybe I don't uderstad very well.

Let me express my frustration.

Andrea, you are active chair and member of ASF! (there is now place for
politness) Kick -off all PMCs and bring project to life !

There are some people who still believes in project, but ...

Proble is not non active people, less releases or resources. Problem is
that every idea is killed. 

This vote was good idea but I thought that you will have disagreement or
not 3 binding votes.

Regards,

Michal Hriň


> Regards,
>Andrea.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[Rory O'Farrell]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:57:43 +0100
Andrea Pescetti  wrote:

> O.Felka wrote:
> > Am 15.01.2015 um 09:04 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> >> Procedural note: I didn't add it to my initial mail in order to keep it
> >> short, but it is highly recommended that -1 votes be accompanied by a
> >> brief motivation (1-2 lines), especially if you haven't participated in
> >> the discussions so far. Knowing what is wrong can help a lot. This holds
> >> for the -1 votes that have already been expressed too.
> >
> > If this should be a vote no one has to argue for his decision.
> 
> Ultimately the +1, 0 or -1 is what counts, indeed.
> 
> But in the case of a -1, an explanation is always helpful to understand 
> what's wrong (wrong timing, and why? wrong person, and why? do you see 
> an option we didn't consider, and which one?). So it is very common 
> practice, unless it's clear from the previous discussion, to provide it. 
> And I would personally find it very useful.
> 
> Regards,
>Andrea.

And it is only a polite request for further information, not compulsory.

-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[Andrea Pescetti]

O.Felka wrote:

Am 15.01.2015 um 09:04 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:

Procedural note: I didn't add it to my initial mail in order to keep it
short, but it is highly recommended that -1 votes be accompanied by a
brief motivation (1-2 lines), especially if you haven't participated in
the discussions so far. Knowing what is wrong can help a lot. This holds
for the -1 votes that have already been expressed too.


If this should be a vote no one has to argue for his decision.


Ultimately the +1, 0 or -1 is what counts, indeed.

But in the case of a -1, an explanation is always helpful to understand 
what's wrong (wrong timing, and why? wrong person, and why? do you see 
an option we didn't consider, and which one?). So it is very common 
practice, unless it's clear from the previous discussion, to provide it. 
And I would personally find it very useful.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] New Apache OpenOffice PMC Chair

[O.Felka]

Am 15.01.2015 um 09:04 schrieb Andrea Pescetti:


Procedural note: I didn't add it to my initial mail in order to keep it
short, but it is highly recommended that -1 votes be accompanied by a
brief motivation (1-2 lines), especially if you haven't participated in
the discussions so far. Knowing what is wrong can help a lot. This holds
for the -1 votes that have already been expressed too.

Regards,
   Andrea.


If this should be a vote no one has to argue for his decision.

Groetjes,
Olaf


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org