Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
On 09/29/2011 09:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: It has been the practice, thus far, that all newly-invited committers are invited to also be on the Podling Project Management Committee (PPMC). Some decline being on the PPMC, some accept, some accept but don't actually show up at the PPMC, etc. A question was raised at the PPMC whether that practice should be continued. One alternative would be to invite people to be committers and to invite committers to become PPMC members separately. Another alternative would be to decide on each individual consideration, whether to invite as committer or as committer plus PPMC. This discussion is to find out what the sentiments in the ooo-dev community are on this subject. It is also a way to learn what your questions are and endeavor to answer them. - Dennis SOME CONTEXT The initial committers, those who were signed up on the original podling proposal, are automatically grandfathered into the project as committers and PPMC members. There are still some of those who have not shown up, some have submitted iCLAs but not gone farther, some do not respond to follow-up e-mails etc. Although there was discussion here on ooo-dev about having an use-by date on the Initial Committer invitations, action has not been taken to offer a last-chance and a deadline at this point. (I think that has been my action; I have not given it any priority.) MY PREFERENCE Since, I am speaking first, here's my view. My preference is to continue the current practice of inviting contributors to be both committers and members of the PPMC. I have seen it recommended for Podlings and I see no reason to suddenly change. Also, I expect there will be some culling of the PPMC on graduation to a top-level project and a PMC. I have seen no harm in the practice whatsoever. There has been no injury or damage no matter what apprehensions there are about having a wide membership in the PPMC. The current practice exposes more contributors to the workings of the PPMC, and it also provides a way for contributors who are not exclusively focused on development to offer their contributions in yet another way. Part of the challenge of the incubator is to develop a sustainable activity for continuing renewal of participation in the face of contributor, committer, and PPMC member turnover. It is the initial PPMCs challenge to foster that and live it. The way to develop a resilient, sustainable project, is to keep PPMC membership open to new committers for now. That's one view. There are many more. What are they? I think the current practice of offering committer and PPMC should continue. People can decline PPMC if they do not wish to participate in that. I came here as one of the original PPMC. New to both Apache and OOo development as a participant. I DO think the PPMC carries additional responsibility. Not to come and go, but be here every day, going through the lists, staying current, commenting and voting when necessary. I spend countless hours on this list looking for ways to contribute. Mostly reading, sometimes commenting, and doing something when I can. If the discussion is in an area I feel is better left to others , I stay out of it. I think that will be the way most will be. Best regards, Carl
RE: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
+1 (using up my quota on this thread for 2011-10-01) -Original Message- From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 16:06 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC On 09/30/2011 11:31 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote: > >> We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a >> committer and PPMC member. So if we did not change anything, we >> would still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the >> status quo of not having such a policy. > > You appear to be arguing against the status quo of all new committers > joining the PPMC though. So my question remains, is there really a > problem with waiting until graduation to adjust this project's PMC? > > My sense is that the project is still in a formative stage and will > need significant changes to the PMC before graduation - it has a > number of PMC members who in a normal Apache project would not even > be committers, for example. Once the dynamics of a fully functional > project are evident I would expect to see a more complete rethink. > The partial move of restricting admission to the PPMC now is > counterintuitive if there is no current harm being done. > > S. I'm inclined to go with Simon's reasoning on this issue. In other words, leave the invitation to new committers as is -- with invitation to the PPMC also. We are still very much in the formative stage here at Apache, and, without extended PPMC membership, we may actually miss extending additional invitations to folks (only PPMC members can do this) who are truly valuable based on a new member's involvement for one. There are many items which can be passed by "lazy consensus". If PPMC members choose NOT to involve themselves in these aspects, so what. I see NO harm at all at continuing the current invitation process during the podling process. > -- MzK "There is no such thing as coincidence." -- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39
Re: [DISCUSS] Having New Committers also be on the PPMC
On 09/30/2011 11:31 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: On 30 Sep 2011, at 19:15, Rob Weir wrote: We have never adopted a formal position of having everyone be a committer and PPMC member. So if we did not change anything, we would still not have such a policy. I'm not arguing against the status quo of not having such a policy. You appear to be arguing against the status quo of all new committers joining the PPMC though. So my question remains, is there really a problem with waiting until graduation to adjust this project's PMC? My sense is that the project is still in a formative stage and will need significant changes to the PMC before graduation - it has a number of PMC members who in a normal Apache project would not even be committers, for example. Once the dynamics of a fully functional project are evident I would expect to see a more complete rethink. The partial move of restricting admission to the PPMC now is counterintuitive if there is no current harm being done. S. I'm inclined to go with Simon's reasoning on this issue. In other words, leave the invitation to new committers as is -- with invitation to the PPMC also. We are still very much in the formative stage here at Apache, and, without extended PPMC membership, we may actually miss extending additional invitations to folks (only PPMC members can do this) who are truly valuable based on a new member's involvement for one. There are many items which can be passed by "lazy consensus". If PPMC members choose NOT to involve themselves in these aspects, so what. I see NO harm at all at continuing the current invitation process during the podling process. -- MzK "There is no such thing as coincidence." -- Leroy Jethro Gibbs, Rule #39
Re: handling of ext_sources - Juergen's suggestion [was: Re: A systematic approach to IP review?]
Am 01.10.2011 00:17, schrieb Michael Stahl: > On 30.09.2011 21:24, Mathias Bauer wrote: >> On 28.09.2011 17:32, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: > >> Another advantage of unpacking the tarballs: the patches will become >> *real* patches that just contain changes of the original source code. >> Often the patches nowadays contain additional files that we just need to >> build the stuff in OOo (e.g. dmake makefiles) - they could be checked in >> as regular files. >> >> Currently keeping them as regular files is awkward because then they >> need to be copied to the place the tarballs are unpacked to. > > but this is just because dmake can only build source files in the same > directory; imagine a more flexible gbuild external build target where the > makefiles are in the source tree while the tarball gets unpacked in the > workdir... Sure, but until we aren't there... I didn't talk about the dmake makefiles that are used to unpack and patch, I was talking about using dmake for building the external modules that come with their own build system. The makefile.mk in the root directory of the external modules are not part of the patch, but some patches contain makefile.mk files that are necessary to build the stuff, either on all or only on some platforms. Regards, Mathias
RE: [DISCUSS] Announcing Apache ooo Bugzilla on OpenOffice.org Lists
Yes. I would like to know who did that too. There is more that could be done. I also see other pages that have been modified on the OpenOffice.org site in sort of a haphazard way. It interferes with finding the good information that is still there, in fact. That is not a transparent activity and I don't know that anyone has provided an account for it. It is not discussed in advance. It just happens. I am confident it is well-intended. - Dennis -Original Message- From: FR web forum [mailto:ooofo...@free.fr] Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 10:28 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Announcing Apache ooo Bugzilla on OpenOffice.org Lists - Mail original - >I do not have any administrative >powers that can be applied to the OpenOffice.org site generally and the >OpenOffice.org lists in particular. Those systems are not under Apache control >in any manner that I know of. OK that's clear, now :-D But who can be contact to make this redirection? Because, someone has set up the actual top red banner on oo.o/bugzilla
Re: [DISCUSS] Announcing Apache ooo Bugzilla on OpenOffice.org Lists
- Mail original - >I do not have any administrative >powers that can be applied to the OpenOffice.org site generally and the >OpenOffice.org lists in particular. Those systems are not under Apache control >in any manner that I know of. OK that's clear, now :-D But who can be contact to make this redirection? Because, someone has set up the actual top red banner on oo.o/bugzilla
RE: [DISCUSS] Announcing Apache ooo Bugzilla on OpenOffice.org Lists
I am unclear how my message from 2011-09-03 is receiving so much attention now. I believe there is a mistaken assumption. I do not have any administrative powers that can be applied to the OpenOffice.org site generally and the OpenOffice.org lists in particular. Those systems are not under Apache control in any manner that I know of. If anyone who does have such powers showed up here, she would be greeted like a long-lost cousin. There would be merriment and dancing in the streets. And the creation of a smooth transition and even preservation of the existing lists might become possible. Thanks for your advice. If you could help us find someone who can actually act on it, that would be wonderful. - Dennis -Original Message- From: FR web forum [mailto:ooofo...@free.fr] Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 08:03 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Announcing Apache ooo Bugzilla on OpenOffice.org Lists > I am preparing a message for OpenOffice.org lists on the shutdown of > the OO.o bugzilla, the availability of the Apache ooo issues tracker, > and advice on resetting passwords... Why don't add an automatic redirection? This will be more user-friendly On the forums, we have plenty of oo.o/bugzilla links and worse with old qa.oo.o links.
RE: Incubator PMC/Board report for October 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
These announcements to a list are interesting, because it is not clear who will take the initiative to see that this happens. Last month, I waited too long before declaring what I would be doing and then doing it. This month, I won't be tardy. I am declaring that I shall not be preparing the quarterly podling report for October. - Dennis -Original Message- From: no-re...@apache.org [mailto:no-re...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 07:00 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Incubator PMC/Board report for October 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org) Dear OpenOffice.org Developers, This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 19 October 2011, 10 am Pacific. The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted one week before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review. Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the incubator PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the very latest you should submit your report is one week prior to the board meeting. Thanks, The Apache Incubator PMC Submitting your Report -- Your report should contain the following: * Your project name * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of the project or necessarily of its field * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation. * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be aware of * How has the community developed since the last report * How has the project developed since the last report. This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/October2011 Note: This manually populated. You may need to wait a little before this page is created from a template. Mentors --- Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on the Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are following the project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms for the Incubator PMC. Incubator PMC
RE: [DISCUSS] Announcing Apache ooo Bugzilla on OpenOffice.org Lists
Umm, I did do what I said in that early-September list message quoted below. I am in no position to write the same messages on NL lists. Thank you for taking that on. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@openoffice.org] Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 01:36 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Announcing Apache ooo Bugzilla on OpenOffice.org Lists On 03/09/2011 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I am preparing a message for OpenOffice.org lists on the shutdown of > the OO.o bugzilla, the availability of the Apache ooo issues tracker, > and advice on resetting passwords... > Are there any national-language lists where this would be important? Information like this is important to all N-L lists, especially if you consider that issues are not redirected at the moment (i.e., if I open http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12 I'm shown a notice in English that says the issue is read-only and a shows a link to the new Bugzilla home page, not to the new page of Issue 12). I took the habit of periodically informing the Italian OpenOffice.org users list about the most prominent user-visible changes, while redirecting users here for more information; last week I sent a notice about the Bugzilla migration and I plan to do the same for other major announcements, as a service to our users. By the way, N-L in OpenOffice.org jargon stands for "Native Language" not "National Language". Regards, Andrea.
Re: [DISCUSS] Announcing Apache ooo Bugzilla on OpenOffice.org Lists
> I am preparing a message for OpenOffice.org lists on the shutdown of > the OO.o bugzilla, the availability of the Apache ooo issues tracker, > and advice on resetting passwords... Why don't add an automatic redirection? This will be more user-friendly On the forums, we have plenty of oo.o/bugzilla links and worse with old qa.oo.o links.
Incubator PMC/Board report for October 2011 (ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org)
Dear OpenOffice.org Developers, This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 19 October 2011, 10 am Pacific. The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted one week before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review. Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the incubator PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the very latest you should submit your report is one week prior to the board meeting. Thanks, The Apache Incubator PMC Submitting your Report -- Your report should contain the following: * Your project name * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of the project or necessarily of its field * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation. * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be aware of * How has the community developed since the last report * How has the project developed since the last report. This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/October2011 Note: This manually populated. You may need to wait a little before this page is created from a template. Mentors --- Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on the Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are following the project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms for the Incubator PMC. Incubator PMC
Re: Not new but under a new hat
On 1 October 2011 00:12, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Mathias Bauer >wrote: > > > Am 30.09.2011 21:36, schrieb Alexandro Colorado: > > > > > I dunno why this is such an issue really, we are both open source > > projects. > > > Cooperating and working together doesnt really needs much, just commit > to > > > both projects and move on. I mean, what are we looking for here, do you > > want > > > an explicit thank you note from both projects? Or you only wanting to > get > > > commits and contribute to both. > > > > I think that I have clearly stated what I would like to see. Or better, > > what I don't like to see. Sorry, but I don't understand how your comment > > is related to that. > > > > Regards, > > Mathias > > > My comment relates that there are many people expressing opinions, while we > should be focusing more on contributions. Contributions are of course very important and I think Mathias has contributed a lot more code than you or I so his views should have significantly more weight. > If a large population focus on > contributions, then the working together part will just happen. > I don't think that is very likely at all. Even if it did the question then is how much more might have been achieved? Where does this "large population" come from? It seems to me that you catch more bears with honey than you do with vinegar so attracting developers to a larger cooperative ecosystem is more likely than to one that is divided and "bitchy". Getting that environment right won't happen without some dialogue that is positively motivated to do it. Ok, some might not be interested in that aspect - then just leave it to those that are rather than acting destructively. i.e. If the localization on LibO and OOo is handled by the same group of > people, then, the working together part, wouldn't be that hard to achieve. > If my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle ;-). If is the pivotal word. Why would that localisation by a single group happen spontaneously in the current climate? It might but it might not. The question is how to make it more likely that that might happen? Without some discussion about the scope for co-operation you are just leaving it to randomness and hoping. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Not new but under a new hat
> > > I'd say stop posting reactionary and emotive stuff when someone makes a > > positive suggestion to get people working together. > > You've hit the nail on the head! > > Since the split of the OOo community we had the strange situation that > many people on both sides declared an interest to get together (even if > it is unclear today how that will look like), but when we had > discussions about that matter, most participants acted like they wanted > the opposite. > Or maybe its just a few who happen to be more willing to post their thinking. When I talk face to face with people they all seem to say "oh, it would be a good thing to share resources and work efficiently together". When I post to a mailing list I seem to get all the reasons and obstacles as to why it can't happen. If the attitude is we can make it work probably it can. Looking for parts in each others posts that could be *interpreted* > negatively got more interest than praising the positive statements in > them. I have a very philantropic attitude, so I still believe that this > was caused by negative emotions of the past, not by malevolence. But > IMHO it's time to stop that and look forward, not backwards. > > Nobody is perfect - so people make mistakes. Sometimes also people have > to do things for reasons that are not their own (I know this well > enough!). If you want cooperation, you have to remember this and focus > on the positive sides that can help to establish or foster cooperation, > but not enhance the negative sides and blame people for them. > > And nobody should expect that anybody will come up with a plan and - > whoosh! - both projects will work together. That won't happen. Absolutely +1. Coding is hard work, but so is the community context in which it can thrive. > Future cooperation will require small steps and the admittance to overcome > the > mostly psychological barriers. > If you think you can or if you think you can't you are probably right :-) Attitude is largely what matters. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: [DISCUSS] Announcing Apache ooo Bugzilla on OpenOffice.org Lists
On 03/09/2011 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I am preparing a message for OpenOffice.org lists on the shutdown of the OO.o bugzilla, the availability of the Apache ooo issues tracker, and advice on resetting passwords... Are there any national-language lists where this would be important? Information like this is important to all N-L lists, especially if you consider that issues are not redirected at the moment (i.e., if I open http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12 I'm shown a notice in English that says the issue is read-only and a shows a link to the new Bugzilla home page, not to the new page of Issue 12). I took the habit of periodically informing the Italian OpenOffice.org users list about the most prominent user-visible changes, while redirecting users here for more information; last week I sent a notice about the Bugzilla migration and I plan to do the same for other major announcements, as a service to our users. By the way, N-L in OpenOffice.org jargon stands for "Native Language" not "National Language". Regards, Andrea.
