Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Ian Lynch]

On 25 September 2012 14:20, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> On 9/25/12 2:49 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
>> On 25 September 2012 12:10, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Ross Gardler
>>>  wrote:
 On 25 September 2012 11:22, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
>> On 25 September 2012 06:15, imacat  wrote:
>>> I feel honored to be listed.  I would like to help PMC if there is a
>>> chance.
>>>
>>> In any case, I suggest at least one female should be included in the
>>> PMC, to encourage the contribution of females in the community and bring
>>> diverse voices in PMC.  It is very important to encourage more and more
>>> female contributors to join the community, and make them feel that
>>> OpenOffice is theirs', not of some male geeks.
>>
>> +1 broad representation is important.
>>
>
> IMHO this is a bad idea and if we go down this route it demonstrates
> that we do not understand The Apache Way.
>>
>> Demonstration of merit AND broad representation. Why these things
>> should be mutually exclusive in a project the size of AOO is beyond
>> me.
>> It's not an either or it's a both.
>>
>> Since Apache is about community as well as code, merit can be gained
>> by recruitment, maintaining a healthy community and maximising its
>> growth. Apache is at least in part about inclusion according to the
>> mentors so strategies for inclusion are just as much part of the
>> Apache Way as merit. We should not be just cherry picking bits of the
>> Apache Way that suit a particular perspective.
>>
>
> please Ian, this thread is not the best place to continue this
> discussion.

It is important to understand that "the list" is not decided on
misconceptions. That is relevant to this thread. But I'll also post on
the other thread.

> And again we are all on the same train. We had a thread
> about "What is a good Project Management Committee?" and this is
> probably the better place.
>
> Juergen
>



-- 
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] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 9/25/12 2:49 PM, Ian Lynch wrote:
> On 25 September 2012 12:10, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Ross Gardler
>>  wrote:
>>> On 25 September 2012 11:22, Rob Weir  wrote:
 On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
> On 25 September 2012 06:15, imacat  wrote:
>> I feel honored to be listed.  I would like to help PMC if there is a
>> chance.
>>
>> In any case, I suggest at least one female should be included in the
>> PMC, to encourage the contribution of females in the community and bring
>> diverse voices in PMC.  It is very important to encourage more and more
>> female contributors to join the community, and make them feel that
>> OpenOffice is theirs', not of some male geeks.
>
> +1 broad representation is important.
>

 IMHO this is a bad idea and if we go down this route it demonstrates
 that we do not understand The Apache Way.
> 
> Demonstration of merit AND broad representation. Why these things
> should be mutually exclusive in a project the size of AOO is beyond
> me.
> It's not an either or it's a both.
> 
> Since Apache is about community as well as code, merit can be gained
> by recruitment, maintaining a healthy community and maximising its
> growth. Apache is at least in part about inclusion according to the
> mentors so strategies for inclusion are just as much part of the
> Apache Way as merit. We should not be just cherry picking bits of the
> Apache Way that suit a particular perspective.
> 

please Ian, this thread is not the best place to continue this
discussion. And again we are all on the same train. We had a thread
about "What is a good Project Management Committee?" and this is
probably the better place.

Juergen

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Ian Lynch]

On 25 September 2012 12:10, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Ross Gardler
>  wrote:
>> On 25 September 2012 11:22, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
 On 25 September 2012 06:15, imacat  wrote:
> I feel honored to be listed.  I would like to help PMC if there is a
> chance.
>
> In any case, I suggest at least one female should be included in the
> PMC, to encourage the contribution of females in the community and bring
> diverse voices in PMC.  It is very important to encourage more and more
> female contributors to join the community, and make them feel that
> OpenOffice is theirs', not of some male geeks.

 +1 broad representation is important.

>>>
>>> IMHO this is a bad idea and if we go down this route it demonstrates
>>> that we do not understand The Apache Way.

Demonstration of merit AND broad representation. Why these things
should be mutually exclusive in a project the size of AOO is beyond
me.
It's not an either or it's a both.

Since Apache is about community as well as code, merit can be gained
by recruitment, maintaining a healthy community and maximising its
growth. Apache is at least in part about inclusion according to the
mentors so strategies for inclusion are just as much part of the
Apache Way as merit. We should not be just cherry picking bits of the
Apache Way that suit a particular perspective.

-- 
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] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Rob Weir]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
> On 9/25/12 1:10 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Ross Gardler
>>  wrote:
>>> On 25 September 2012 11:22, Rob Weir  wrote:
 On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
> On 25 September 2012 06:15, imacat  wrote:
>> I feel honored to be listed.  I would like to help PMC if there is a
>> chance.
>>
>> In any case, I suggest at least one female should be included in the
>> PMC, to encourage the contribution of females in the community and bring
>> diverse voices in PMC.  It is very important to encourage more and more
>> female contributors to join the community, and make them feel that
>> OpenOffice is theirs', not of some male geeks.
>
> +1 broad representation is important.
>

 IMHO this is a bad idea and if we go down this route it demonstrates
 that we do not understand The Apache Way.
>>>
>>> I don't think the idea of actively seeking broad representation is
>>> necessarily counter to the Apache Way. It depends on exactly how that
>>> representation is achieved.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps you missed my last paragraph where I talked specifically about
>> seeking broad participation?
>>
>> The issue is not diversity.  In fact Roy has stated quite bluntly that
>> diversity in itself is not an issue with graduation.  The issue is
>> thinking of the PMC as a representative body, where participants
>> "represent" some finer grained constituency and where the composition
>> of the PMC is optimized to someone's view of what a proper
>> distribution is, rather then on merit.  If it is wrong for someone to
>> claim to "represent IBM" then it is equally wrong for someone to claim
>> to "represent Asian women".  We participate as individuals.
>>
>> IMHO we should be hearing the word "representation" a lot less when
>> describing the PMC.  It *is not* a representative body.  Individuals
>> participate based on their own merit, not as representatives of some
>> other group of interest.  We underestimate how radically different a
>> meritocracy is if we do not grok this distinction.
>>
>> Or maybe you and Ian are using the word "representation" in some loose way?
>>
>> To note: the legacy OpenOffice.org project was representative, and
>> some may be reverting to that mental model, of governance that had
>> fixed set aside seats for specific representation, e.g., one person
>> from the Calc project, one person from the NCL, one seat set aside for
>> Sun, etc.
>>
 The PMC *is not* representative. The PMC is inclusive of *all that
 show merit* for the things that the PMC is responsible for.  To have a
 PMC based on representation suggests that members are included for
 things other than merit, or that other potential members are excluded
 based on representation concerns regardless of their demonstrated
 merit.  Both are wrong.
>>>
>>> I agree both are wrong.
>>>
>>> On the other hand I really hope that Imacat and others seek to address
>>> the issue of
>>> inclusion of all. Such work is, in itself, worthy of merit yet is
>>> often not recognised as such in software projects like those here in
>>> the ASF.
>>>
>>
>> Inclusion != a representative PMC.  Inclusion is about recruitment and
>> ensuring that all merit is recognized.  It is not about quotas.
>
> I believe that we are all on the same track here more or less and I hope
> that we don't destroy this ongoing discussion on a PMC roster with too
> much nit-picking.


Thanks for the reminder.  I've said all I wanted to say on this topic.
 I'm done.

Onward and upward!

-Rob

> The OpenOffice community had always a broader community and we welcome
> anybody as community member, as committer or as PMC member over time. We
> are open in all directions and the most important thing is that we drive
> things forward and don't stand idle.
>
> In the end we are mainly a software project. No software product means
> no project, no community, no committers, no PMC. And we are trying to
> address everything related to our project.
>
> So please let us continue to work and finish the things that are
> necessary to move forward. And any effort to grow in whatever direction
> is welcome. Simply start doing it and ideally talk and report about it
> that others have the chance to recognize it. I am a software developer,
> believe that I can motivate people in a community, can spread my
> knowledge about certain things but I am not a clairvoyant (as many
> others as well). So visibility of what you are doing is somewhat
> necessary to get recognition.
>
> Juergen
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 9/25/12 1:10 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Ross Gardler
>  wrote:
>> On 25 September 2012 11:22, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
 On 25 September 2012 06:15, imacat  wrote:
> I feel honored to be listed.  I would like to help PMC if there is a
> chance.
>
> In any case, I suggest at least one female should be included in the
> PMC, to encourage the contribution of females in the community and bring
> diverse voices in PMC.  It is very important to encourage more and more
> female contributors to join the community, and make them feel that
> OpenOffice is theirs', not of some male geeks.

 +1 broad representation is important.

>>>
>>> IMHO this is a bad idea and if we go down this route it demonstrates
>>> that we do not understand The Apache Way.
>>
>> I don't think the idea of actively seeking broad representation is
>> necessarily counter to the Apache Way. It depends on exactly how that
>> representation is achieved.
>>
> 
> Perhaps you missed my last paragraph where I talked specifically about
> seeking broad participation?
> 
> The issue is not diversity.  In fact Roy has stated quite bluntly that
> diversity in itself is not an issue with graduation.  The issue is
> thinking of the PMC as a representative body, where participants
> "represent" some finer grained constituency and where the composition
> of the PMC is optimized to someone's view of what a proper
> distribution is, rather then on merit.  If it is wrong for someone to
> claim to "represent IBM" then it is equally wrong for someone to claim
> to "represent Asian women".  We participate as individuals.
> 
> IMHO we should be hearing the word "representation" a lot less when
> describing the PMC.  It *is not* a representative body.  Individuals
> participate based on their own merit, not as representatives of some
> other group of interest.  We underestimate how radically different a
> meritocracy is if we do not grok this distinction.
> 
> Or maybe you and Ian are using the word "representation" in some loose way?
> 
> To note: the legacy OpenOffice.org project was representative, and
> some may be reverting to that mental model, of governance that had
> fixed set aside seats for specific representation, e.g., one person
> from the Calc project, one person from the NCL, one seat set aside for
> Sun, etc.
> 
>>> The PMC *is not* representative. The PMC is inclusive of *all that
>>> show merit* for the things that the PMC is responsible for.  To have a
>>> PMC based on representation suggests that members are included for
>>> things other than merit, or that other potential members are excluded
>>> based on representation concerns regardless of their demonstrated
>>> merit.  Both are wrong.
>>
>> I agree both are wrong.
>>
>> On the other hand I really hope that Imacat and others seek to address
>> the issue of
>> inclusion of all. Such work is, in itself, worthy of merit yet is
>> often not recognised as such in software projects like those here in
>> the ASF.
>>
> 
> Inclusion != a representative PMC.  Inclusion is about recruitment and
> ensuring that all merit is recognized.  It is not about quotas.

I believe that we are all on the same track here more or less and I hope
that we don't destroy this ongoing discussion on a PMC roster with too
much nit-picking.
The OpenOffice community had always a broader community and we welcome
anybody as community member, as committer or as PMC member over time. We
are open in all directions and the most important thing is that we drive
things forward and don't stand idle.

In the end we are mainly a software project. No software product means
no project, no community, no committers, no PMC. And we are trying to
address everything related to our project.

So please let us continue to work and finish the things that are
necessary to move forward. And any effort to grow in whatever direction
is welcome. Simply start doing it and ideally talk and report about it
that others have the chance to recognize it. I am a software developer,
believe that I can motivate people in a community, can spread my
knowledge about certain things but I am not a clairvoyant (as many
others as well). So visibility of what you are doing is somewhat
necessary to get recognition.

Juergen

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Rob Weir]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Ross Gardler
 wrote:
> On 25 September 2012 11:22, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
>>> On 25 September 2012 06:15, imacat  wrote:
 I feel honored to be listed.  I would like to help PMC if there is a
 chance.

 In any case, I suggest at least one female should be included in the
 PMC, to encourage the contribution of females in the community and bring
 diverse voices in PMC.  It is very important to encourage more and more
 female contributors to join the community, and make them feel that
 OpenOffice is theirs', not of some male geeks.
>>>
>>> +1 broad representation is important.
>>>
>>
>> IMHO this is a bad idea and if we go down this route it demonstrates
>> that we do not understand The Apache Way.
>
> I don't think the idea of actively seeking broad representation is
> necessarily counter to the Apache Way. It depends on exactly how that
> representation is achieved.
>

Perhaps you missed my last paragraph where I talked specifically about
seeking broad participation?

The issue is not diversity.  In fact Roy has stated quite bluntly that
diversity in itself is not an issue with graduation.  The issue is
thinking of the PMC as a representative body, where participants
"represent" some finer grained constituency and where the composition
of the PMC is optimized to someone's view of what a proper
distribution is, rather then on merit.  If it is wrong for someone to
claim to "represent IBM" then it is equally wrong for someone to claim
to "represent Asian women".  We participate as individuals.

IMHO we should be hearing the word "representation" a lot less when
describing the PMC.  It *is not* a representative body.  Individuals
participate based on their own merit, not as representatives of some
other group of interest.  We underestimate how radically different a
meritocracy is if we do not grok this distinction.

Or maybe you and Ian are using the word "representation" in some loose way?

To note: the legacy OpenOffice.org project was representative, and
some may be reverting to that mental model, of governance that had
fixed set aside seats for specific representation, e.g., one person
from the Calc project, one person from the NCL, one seat set aside for
Sun, etc.

>> The PMC *is not* representative. The PMC is inclusive of *all that
>> show merit* for the things that the PMC is responsible for.  To have a
>> PMC based on representation suggests that members are included for
>> things other than merit, or that other potential members are excluded
>> based on representation concerns regardless of their demonstrated
>> merit.  Both are wrong.
>
> I agree both are wrong.
>
> On the other hand I really hope that Imacat and others seek to address
> the issue of
> inclusion of all. Such work is, in itself, worthy of merit yet is
> often not recognised as such in software projects like those here in
> the ASF.
>

Inclusion != a representative PMC.  Inclusion is about recruitment and
ensuring that all merit is recognized.  It is not about quotas.

-Rob

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Ross Gardler]

On 25 September 2012 11:22, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
>> On 25 September 2012 06:15, imacat  wrote:
>>> I feel honored to be listed.  I would like to help PMC if there is a
>>> chance.
>>>
>>> In any case, I suggest at least one female should be included in the
>>> PMC, to encourage the contribution of females in the community and bring
>>> diverse voices in PMC.  It is very important to encourage more and more
>>> female contributors to join the community, and make them feel that
>>> OpenOffice is theirs', not of some male geeks.
>>
>> +1 broad representation is important.
>>
>
> IMHO this is a bad idea and if we go down this route it demonstrates
> that we do not understand The Apache Way.

I don't think the idea of actively seeking broad representation is
necessarily counter to the Apache Way. It depends on exactly how that
representation is achieved.

> The PMC *is not* representative. The PMC is inclusive of *all that
> show merit* for the things that the PMC is responsible for.  To have a
> PMC based on representation suggests that members are included for
> things other than merit, or that other potential members are excluded
> based on representation concerns regardless of their demonstrated
> merit.  Both are wrong.

I agree both are wrong.

On the other hand I really hope that Imacat and others seek to address
the issue of
inclusion of all. Such work is, in itself, worthy of merit yet is
often not recognised as such in software projects like those here in
the ASF.

Similarly, activities that limit the participation of others can
destroy a project community. This can happen either intentionally
(such behaviours have no place in an ASF project) or unintentionally
(in which case such behaviours need to be corrected by the community).
It's this latter situation that can be very hard to manage. It raises
the question of does adherence to and enforcement of the code of
conduct trump technical merit?

[ASIDE: the Community Development PMC, d...@community.apache.org, are
always looking to make the ASF more welcoming to all. There are some
useful experiences there and the PMC is always looking for other
ideas]

Ross

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Rob Weir]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Ian Lynch  wrote:
> On 25 September 2012 06:15, imacat  wrote:
>> I feel honored to be listed.  I would like to help PMC if there is a
>> chance.
>>
>> In any case, I suggest at least one female should be included in the
>> PMC, to encourage the contribution of females in the community and bring
>> diverse voices in PMC.  It is very important to encourage more and more
>> female contributors to join the community, and make them feel that
>> OpenOffice is theirs', not of some male geeks.
>
> +1 broad representation is important.
>

IMHO this is a bad idea and if we go down this route it demonstrates
that we do not understand The Apache Way.

The PMC *is not* representative. The PMC is inclusive of *all that
show merit* for the things that the PMC is responsible for.  To have a
PMC based on representation suggests that members are included for
things other than merit, or that other potential members are excluded
based on representation concerns regardless of their demonstrated
merit.  Both are wrong.

Of course, representation and balance in the project is important, but
we should try to make gains there by encouraging contributors from all
stakeholder groups. And if we are broad and inclusive of all
stakeholder groups then, over time, this will lead to increased
diversity in contributors, and eventually with contributors showing
merit and PMC membership.   So it comes naturally.   But we need to
aim for actual diversity in contributors, not some fake diversity via
handpicked under-weighting and over-weighting of contributor groups
based on factors other than merit.  In other words, diversity is more
than window dressing.

-Rob


> --
> 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] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Ian Lynch]

On 25 September 2012 06:15, imacat  wrote:
> I feel honored to be listed.  I would like to help PMC if there is a
> chance.
>
> In any case, I suggest at least one female should be included in the
> PMC, to encourage the contribution of females in the community and bring
> diverse voices in PMC.  It is very important to encourage more and more
> female contributors to join the community, and make them feel that
> OpenOffice is theirs', not of some male geeks.

+1 broad representation is important.

-- 
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] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 9/25/12 7:15 AM, imacat wrote:
> I feel honored to be listed.  I would like to help PMC if there is a
> chance.

I am sure you will and you already does


> 
> In any case, I suggest at least one female should be included in the
> PMC, to encourage the contribution of females in the community and bring
> diverse voices in PMC.  It is very important to encourage more and more
> female contributors to join the community, and make them feel that
> OpenOffice is theirs', not of some male geeks.

interesting view and I agree. Well I personally have never
differentiated between female/male contributors and I am happy and
welcome any contributor here at Apache.

And I think we are on a good way. We have a growing number of female
contributors here in our project and of course many of them are coming
from Asia. We are now really global and have many contributors from all
over the world. But we can always do better ;-)

> 
> I also suggest to include Asians.  From the past experience of
> OpenOffice.org, the main problem of the Asian community is that we are
> not included in the project.  The problem of Asian text processing is
> very different than that of Latin text.  It was very difficult for many
> most important Asian problems to be heard by non-Asian people.  It shall
> change and make a significant difference when Asians are included in PMC.

I think it is already addressed with some names on the list and I agree
that Asia is important for us to grow our community. But I also think
that we don't differentiate here. Nobody will get an advantage because
of the simple fact that she/he is coming from Asia. I think we will
recognize all contributions in the same way and when we noticed that
somebody does a great job here and help us to grow the community and the
project we will surely consider the PMC membership. We want to grow in
all areas!

Juergen


> 
> On 2012/09/25 06:31, Andrea Pescetti said:
>> On 24/09/2012 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 9/24/12 10:26 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
 Just to confirm that I have received no offline nominations.
>>>
>>> thanks for this info, it shows that the approach was not so wrong and we
>>> had no real need for this additional option.
>>
>> It's still good to have had this option, so we are sure that everybody
>> who wanted to participate in the process had the opportunity to do so.
>> And it's even better that in the end everybody decided to make their
>> nomination in public.
>>
>>> I am looking forward to Andrew's summary and from my perspective we
>>> should already start thinking what will be next?
>>
>> Before moving on with all the steps you listed (and I agree with all of
>> them) we will need to actually see the summary and derive the potential
>> PMC from there. So far I've seen opinions ranging from including only
>> the 10 most popular nominees to including everybody who received at
>> least one nomination. Probably the best solution is somewhere in
>> between, but once we have the summary the situation will probably be
>> clearer.
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Andrea.
> 
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[imacat]

I feel honored to be listed.  I would like to help PMC if there is a
chance.

In any case, I suggest at least one female should be included in the
PMC, to encourage the contribution of females in the community and bring
diverse voices in PMC.  It is very important to encourage more and more
female contributors to join the community, and make them feel that
OpenOffice is theirs', not of some male geeks.

I also suggest to include Asians.  From the past experience of
OpenOffice.org, the main problem of the Asian community is that we are
not included in the project.  The problem of Asian text processing is
very different than that of Latin text.  It was very difficult for many
most important Asian problems to be heard by non-Asian people.  It shall
change and make a significant difference when Asians are included in PMC.

On 2012/09/25 06:31, Andrea Pescetti said:
> On 24/09/2012 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 9/24/12 10:26 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> Just to confirm that I have received no offline nominations.
>>
>> thanks for this info, it shows that the approach was not so wrong and we
>> had no real need for this additional option.
> 
> It's still good to have had this option, so we are sure that everybody
> who wanted to participate in the process had the opportunity to do so.
> And it's even better that in the end everybody decided to make their
> nomination in public.
> 
>> I am looking forward to Andrew's summary and from my perspective we
>> should already start thinking what will be next?
> 
> Before moving on with all the steps you listed (and I agree with all of
> them) we will need to actually see the summary and derive the potential
> PMC from there. So far I've seen opinions ranging from including only
> the 10 most popular nominees to including everybody who received at
> least one nomination. Probably the best solution is somewhere in
> between, but once we have the summary the situation will probably be
> clearer.
> 
> Regards,
>   Andrea.


-- 
Best regards,
imacat ^_*' 
PGP Key http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.asc

<> News: http://www.wov.idv.tw/
Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/
Woman in FOSS in Taiwan http://wofoss.blogspot.com/
Apache OpenOffice http://www.openoffice.org/
EducOO/OOo4Kids Taiwan http://www.educoo.tw/
Greenfoot Taiwan http://greenfoot.westart.tw/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 24/09/2012 Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

On 9/24/12 10:26 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:

Just to confirm that I have received no offline nominations.


thanks for this info, it shows that the approach was not so wrong and we
had no real need for this additional option.


It's still good to have had this option, so we are sure that everybody 
who wanted to participate in the process had the opportunity to do so. 
And it's even better that in the end everybody decided to make their 
nomination in public.



I am looking forward to Andrew's summary and from my perspective we
should already start thinking what will be next?


Before moving on with all the steps you listed (and I agree with all of 
them) we will need to actually see the summary and derive the potential 
PMC from there. So far I've seen opinions ranging from including only 
the 10 most popular nominees to including everybody who received at 
least one nomination. Probably the best solution is somewhere in 
between, but once we have the summary the situation will probably be 
clearer.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Jürgen Schmidt]

On 9/24/12 10:26 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Just to confirm that I have received no offline nominations.

thanks for this info, it shows that the approach was not so wrong and we
had no real need for this additional option.

I am looking forward to Andrew's summary and from my perspective we
should already start thinking what will be next?

This approach as one of many possible approaches to create a PMC list
will have brought us to a list of names. A list of names where the
majority can live with of better which the majority want to have in a
PMC. I believe that this list would be similar to any other outcome of
any other approach we would have taken and I think we should take it. We
have made clear several times that the PMC will grow over time and that
the initial PMC is only a start.

One possible way to move forward is
1. once we have the collected list, we will ask everybody if she/he is
interested to become a final PMC member or not. We should take known
vacation times into account.

2. As result if 1. we will have a PMC list where we can start with for
the graduation.

3. Start thinking of a good candidate for the PMC chair. Probably
somebody of the list but not necessarily. I would accept any other
nomination but that is probably unlikely.

4. Start voting on the PMC chair

5. Finalize (enhance, complete, ...) our Graduation Resolution [1]
This can be done in parallel if we think something important is missing
or should be added.

6. Continue with the graduation.

7. Keep it simply and don't make it to complicate.


Regarding 6.
I think we have successfully voted on the graduation already and I
believe that we should continue on this. We received feedback and
concerns from our mentors and are working on these stuff. But this is
ongoing and not really easy to measure because it was not really
detailed and more general. The best way to demonstrate that we are ready
is to continue and move forward things that we have to do anyway and
that will help us on different levels. And one of this is graduation!

If still anybody has serious concerns that we should not graduate I
would require that it is put on the table *NOW* and here on the public
list that everybody can see it. And we should require that potential
concerns are detailed enough that we can work on it. Everything else is
wasted time from my point of view.


So let us move forward together

Juergen



[1
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Graduation+Resolution+%28draft%29


> 
> Sent from my tablet
> On Sep 19, 2012 12:00 AM, "Andrew Rist"  wrote:
> 
>> (top posting after private messages - I cannot describe the shame I
>> feel...  ;-)
>>
>> I have an option that I believe will handle Andrea's concerns.  I have
>> spoken with Ross and he is amenable to receiving Proposed PMC entries off
>> list.
>> If anyone is concerned about sending their list to ooo-dev, you can send
>> it to Ross ( rgardler at apache) instead, and at the end of the period
>> (next Sunday), he will send an anonymized summary of the votes he has
>> received, along with a breakdown of submissions by committers/PPMC vs other
>> community members.
>>
>> We have received lists from 10 people and have 25 nominees with multiple
>> votes.  It would be great to get even more feedback.
>>
>> A.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/18/2012 1:17 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/09/2012 Andrew Rist wrote:
>>>
 * This is not a vote. This is a search for consensus. Please no '-1'
 replies. Let's see what this process produces, and then discuss
 from there.

>>>
>>> It seems that the process is working quite well, and that we are on the
>>> right way to bootstrap a PMC by consensus.
>>>
>>> I surely don't want to block the current process, but I wonder if
>>> allowing people to "vote" (actually, express preferences) anonymously would
>>> be better for some volunteers/cultures. Our mentors have often stated that
>>> we have secure voting solutions available, but maybe this is overkill and
>>> time-consuming, and it would be enough to allow people to send their lists
>>> to a mentor (if available), who would repost them here.
>>>
>>> It is not an issue that I feel personally: it's OK for me to continue
>>> with public messages on ooo-dev. But it could be that others have problems,
>>> and in that case I'd encourage them to speak up so that we can find a way
>>> to ensure that everyone can express their opinions.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>   Andrea.
>>>
>>
>>
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Ross Gardler]

Just to confirm that I have received no offline nominations.

Sent from my tablet
On Sep 19, 2012 12:00 AM, "Andrew Rist"  wrote:

> (top posting after private messages - I cannot describe the shame I
> feel...  ;-)
>
> I have an option that I believe will handle Andrea's concerns.  I have
> spoken with Ross and he is amenable to receiving Proposed PMC entries off
> list.
> If anyone is concerned about sending their list to ooo-dev, you can send
> it to Ross ( rgardler at apache) instead, and at the end of the period
> (next Sunday), he will send an anonymized summary of the votes he has
> received, along with a breakdown of submissions by committers/PPMC vs other
> community members.
>
> We have received lists from 10 people and have 25 nominees with multiple
> votes.  It would be great to get even more feedback.
>
> A.
>
>
>
> On 9/18/2012 1:17 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> On 17/09/2012 Andrew Rist wrote:
>>
>>> * This is not a vote. This is a search for consensus. Please no '-1'
>>> replies. Let's see what this process produces, and then discuss
>>> from there.
>>>
>>
>> It seems that the process is working quite well, and that we are on the
>> right way to bootstrap a PMC by consensus.
>>
>> I surely don't want to block the current process, but I wonder if
>> allowing people to "vote" (actually, express preferences) anonymously would
>> be better for some volunteers/cultures. Our mentors have often stated that
>> we have secure voting solutions available, but maybe this is overkill and
>> time-consuming, and it would be enough to allow people to send their lists
>> to a mentor (if available), who would repost them here.
>>
>> It is not an issue that I feel personally: it's OK for me to continue
>> with public messages on ooo-dev. But it could be that others have problems,
>> and in that case I'd encourage them to speak up so that we can find a way
>> to ensure that everyone can express their opinions.
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Andrea.
>>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Alexandro Colorado]

Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
 Andrew Rist (arist)
Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
 Hirano Kazunari (khirano)
 Ian Lynch (ianlynch)
 Drew Jensen (atjensen)
Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
Ricardo Gabriel Berlasso (RGBes)
Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)

On 9/23/12, Louis Suárez-Potts  wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 23 September 2012 21:26, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
>> My list is:
>>
>>   Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
>>   Andrew Rist (arist)
>>   Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch)
>>   Donald Harbison (dpharbison)
>>   Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
>>   Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
>>   Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
>>   Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
>>   Roberto Galoppini (galoppini)
>>   Yong Lin Ma (mayongl)
>>
>> I'm inclined to include everyone mentioned once because 10 people is not
>> enough.
>>
>
> For what?
>
> It's not entirely a dumb question. But what is it that we are after?
>
> Louis
>
>>
>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
>>
>> > Here's a quick update with the progress so far.
>> >
>> > * We have had 14 people provide lists.
>> > * 32 people have been identified (listed below)
>> > * 22 people have shown up more than twice, 3 people are on 10 lists.
>> > * I think we cover 5 continents, and a pretty wide distribution by
>> >   self appointed tasks
>> >
>> > Here's the current list of names (alphabetical by first name)
>> >
>> >   Andre Fischer (af)
>> >   Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
>> >   Andrew Rist (arist)
>> >   Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch)
>> >   Armin Le Grand (alg)
>> >   Claudio Filho (filhocf)
>> >   Dave Fischer (wave)
>>
>> It is Dave Fisher. Or officially the C leads as in C David Fisher.
>>
>> >   Donald Harbison (dpharbison)
>> >   Drew Jensen (atjensen)
>> >   Hagar Delest (hagar)
>> >   Herbert Duerr (hdu)
>> >   Ian Lynch (ingotian)
>> >   Jian Fang Zhang (zhangjf)
>> >   Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
>> >   Kay Schenk (kschenk)
>> >   Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
>> >   Louis Suarez-Potts (louis)
>> >   Maho NAKATA (maho)
>> >   Marcus Lange (marcus)
>> >   Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
>> >   Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
>> >   Peter Junge (pj)
>> >   Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
>> >   Regina Henschel (regina)
>> >   RGB.ES (rgb-es)
>> >   Rob Weir (robweir)
>> >   Roberto Galoppini (galoppini)
>> >   Shen Feng Liu (liushenfeng)
>> >   Thomas J. Frazier (yj)
>> >   Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
>> >   Yong Lin Ma (mayongl)
>> >   Yuri Dario (ydario)
>> >
>> > If you have not provided your list yet (and especially if you think
>> someone is missing...)
>> > There is no better time than now!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>> >
>> > A.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 9/20/2012 10:49 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> >> To clarify:
>> >>
>> >> 1) I'll put together my list of 10 on Sunday.
>> >>
>> >> 2) I agree with Louis that a wiki page that lists the names so far
>> makes sense, but I don't think it should have counts until the process is
>> done.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Dave
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>
>> >> On Sep 20, 2012, at 12:08 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Dave, I'm puzzled.
>> >>>
>> >>> I thought this thread and the one on which nominations are being made
>> was at the initiative of Andrew Rist.
>> >>>
>> >>> Are you and he collaborating on compilation of the results?
>> >>>
>> >>> It would be great if there was a single compilation of the results,
>> >>> it
>> could be verified by anyone, and there can be subsequent discussion on
>> what
>> to make of it, if anything.
>> >>>
>> >>> - Dennis
>> >>>
>> >>> -Original Message-
>> >>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
>> >>> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 06:06
>> >>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Ross Gardler
>> >>> 
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 20 September 2012 11:49, sebb  wrote:
>> >>>>> Once a PMC exists, new members must be nominated and discussed on
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> private@tlp list.
>> >>>>> Votes are held on the private list, so is not secret, but it is not
>> >>>>> public either.
>> >>>> There are very few *must* items in the ASF. In fact it is up to the
>> >>>> PMC to decide how and where the decision is made. When voting on
>> >>>> people most, but not all, projects do it in private.
>> >>> Apache POI is an example. The PMC considers the public vote to be an
>> incentive for contributors. Since votes happen very infrequently it does
>> not add a lot of traffic to the lists.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think that process here is proceeding well. I hope to put together
>> >>> a
>> list on Sunday when I return home.
>> >>>
>> >>> If a wiki is created before then perhaps it should list only names
>> without a count. That way we can all see if anyone is missing.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>> Dave
>> >>>
>> >>>> Ross
>> >
>>
>>
>


-- 
Alexandro Colorado
PPMC Apache OpenOffice
http://es.openoffice.org

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Louis Suárez-Potts]

Hi,


On 23 September 2012 21:26, Dave Fisher  wrote:

> My list is:
>
>   Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
>   Andrew Rist (arist)
>   Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch)
>   Donald Harbison (dpharbison)
>   Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
>   Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
>   Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
>   Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
>   Roberto Galoppini (galoppini)
>   Yong Lin Ma (mayongl)
>
> I'm inclined to include everyone mentioned once because 10 people is not
> enough.
>

For what?

It's not entirely a dumb question. But what is it that we are after?

Louis

>
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
>
> > Here's a quick update with the progress so far.
> >
> > * We have had 14 people provide lists.
> > * 32 people have been identified (listed below)
> > * 22 people have shown up more than twice, 3 people are on 10 lists.
> > * I think we cover 5 continents, and a pretty wide distribution by
> >   self appointed tasks
> >
> > Here's the current list of names (alphabetical by first name)
> >
> >   Andre Fischer (af)
> >   Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
> >   Andrew Rist (arist)
> >   Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch)
> >   Armin Le Grand (alg)
> >   Claudio Filho (filhocf)
> >   Dave Fischer (wave)
>
> It is Dave Fisher. Or officially the C leads as in C David Fisher.
>
> >   Donald Harbison (dpharbison)
> >   Drew Jensen (atjensen)
> >   Hagar Delest (hagar)
> >   Herbert Duerr (hdu)
> >   Ian Lynch (ingotian)
> >   Jian Fang Zhang (zhangjf)
> >   Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
> >   Kay Schenk (kschenk)
> >   Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
> >   Louis Suarez-Potts (louis)
> >   Maho NAKATA (maho)
> >   Marcus Lange (marcus)
> >   Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
> >   Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
> >   Peter Junge (pj)
> >   Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
> >   Regina Henschel (regina)
> >   RGB.ES (rgb-es)
> >   Rob Weir (robweir)
> >   Roberto Galoppini (galoppini)
> >   Shen Feng Liu (liushenfeng)
> >   Thomas J. Frazier (yj)
> >   Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
> >   Yong Lin Ma (mayongl)
> >   Yuri Dario (ydario)
> >
> > If you have not provided your list yet (and especially if you think
> someone is missing...)
> > There is no better time than now!
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> > A.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/20/2012 10:49 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> >> To clarify:
> >>
> >> 1) I'll put together my list of 10 on Sunday.
> >>
> >> 2) I agree with Louis that a wiki page that lists the names so far
> makes sense, but I don't think it should have counts until the process is
> done.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >> On Sep 20, 2012, at 12:08 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dave, I'm puzzled.
> >>>
> >>> I thought this thread and the one on which nominations are being made
> was at the initiative of Andrew Rist.
> >>>
> >>> Are you and he collaborating on compilation of the results?
> >>>
> >>> It would be great if there was a single compilation of the results, it
> could be verified by anyone, and there can be subsequent discussion on what
> to make of it, if anything.
> >>>
> >>> - Dennis
> >>>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 06:06
> >>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Ross Gardler 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 20 September 2012 11:49, sebb  wrote:
> >>>>> Once a PMC exists, new members must be nominated and discussed on the
> >>>>> private@tlp list.
> >>>>> Votes are held on the private list, so is not secret, but it is not
> >>>>> public either.
> >>>> There are very few *must* items in the ASF. In fact it is up to the
> >>>> PMC to decide how and where the decision is made. When voting on
> >>>> people most, but not all, projects do it in private.
> >>> Apache POI is an example. The PMC considers the public vote to be an
> incentive for contributors. Since votes happen very infrequently it does
> not add a lot of traffic to the lists.
> >>>
> >>> I think that process here is proceeding well. I hope to put together a
> list on Sunday when I return home.
> >>>
> >>> If a wiki is created before then perhaps it should list only names
> without a count. That way we can all see if anyone is missing.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>>> Ross
> >
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Dave Fisher]

My list is:

  Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
  Andrew Rist (arist)
  Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch)
  Donald Harbison (dpharbison)
  Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
  Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
  Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
  Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
  Roberto Galoppini (galoppini)
  Yong Lin Ma (mayongl)

I'm inclined to include everyone mentioned once because 10 people is not enough.

On Sep 20, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:

> Here's a quick update with the progress so far.
> 
> * We have had 14 people provide lists.
> * 32 people have been identified (listed below)
> * 22 people have shown up more than twice, 3 people are on 10 lists.
> * I think we cover 5 continents, and a pretty wide distribution by
>   self appointed tasks
> 
> Here's the current list of names (alphabetical by first name)
> 
>   Andre Fischer (af)
>   Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
>   Andrew Rist (arist)
>   Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch)
>   Armin Le Grand (alg)
>   Claudio Filho (filhocf)
>   Dave Fischer (wave)

It is Dave Fisher. Or officially the C leads as in C David Fisher.

>   Donald Harbison (dpharbison)
>   Drew Jensen (atjensen)
>   Hagar Delest (hagar)
>   Herbert Duerr (hdu)
>   Ian Lynch (ingotian)
>   Jian Fang Zhang (zhangjf)
>   Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
>   Kay Schenk (kschenk)
>   Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
>   Louis Suarez-Potts (louis)
>   Maho NAKATA (maho)
>   Marcus Lange (marcus)
>   Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
>   Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
>   Peter Junge (pj)
>   Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
>   Regina Henschel (regina)
>   RGB.ES (rgb-es)
>   Rob Weir (robweir)
>   Roberto Galoppini (galoppini)
>   Shen Feng Liu (liushenfeng)
>   Thomas J. Frazier (yj)
>   Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
>   Yong Lin Ma (mayongl)
>   Yuri Dario (ydario)
> 
> If you have not provided your list yet (and especially if you think someone 
> is missing...)
> There is no better time than now!

Regards,
Dave

> 
> A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/20/2012 10:49 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> To clarify:
>> 
>> 1) I'll put together my list of 10 on Sunday.
>> 
>> 2) I agree with Louis that a wiki page that lists the names so far makes 
>> sense, but I don't think it should have counts until the process is done.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 12:08 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton"  wrote:
>> 
>>> Dave, I'm puzzled.
>>> 
>>> I thought this thread and the one on which nominations are being made was 
>>> at the initiative of Andrew Rist.
>>> 
>>> Are you and he collaborating on compilation of the results?
>>> 
>>> It would be great if there was a single compilation of the results, it 
>>> could be verified by anyone, and there can be subsequent discussion on what 
>>> to make of it, if anything.
>>> 
>>> - Dennis
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 06:06
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List
>>> 
>>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Ross Gardler  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 20 September 2012 11:49, sebb  wrote:
>>>>> Once a PMC exists, new members must be nominated and discussed on the
>>>>> private@tlp list.
>>>>> Votes are held on the private list, so is not secret, but it is not
>>>>> public either.
>>>> There are very few *must* items in the ASF. In fact it is up to the
>>>> PMC to decide how and where the decision is made. When voting on
>>>> people most, but not all, projects do it in private.
>>> Apache POI is an example. The PMC considers the public vote to be an 
>>> incentive for contributors. Since votes happen very infrequently it does 
>>> not add a lot of traffic to the lists.
>>> 
>>> I think that process here is proceeding well. I hope to put together a list 
>>> on Sunday when I return home.
>>> 
>>> If a wiki is created before then perhaps it should list only names without 
>>> a count. That way we can all see if anyone is missing.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>>> Ross
> 

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Albino B Neto]

Hi.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Alexandro Colorado  wrote:
> I think he said mkt
>
> On 9/20/12, Louis Suárez-Potts  wrote:
>>
>> On 12-09-20, at 18:43 , Albino B Neto  wrote:
>>> I am subscribe in lists of AOO: announce, commits, dev, l10n, mkt,
>>> pvt, qa, user.
>>
>> What, not marketing?
>> :-)

Mkt = Marketing ;-)

Albino

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Wolf Halton]

My list of 10:

Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
Andrew Rist (arist)
David Fisher (wave) (Apache Membeber)
David McKay (thegurkha)
Donald P. Harbison (dpharbison)
Drew Jensen (atjensen)
Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
Peter Junge (pj)
Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)



-- 
This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com
Open-Source Software in Libraries - http://FOSS4Lib.org
Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org
Apache Open Office Developer wolfhal...@apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[zhangjf]

Hi,

Here is my proposed list of 10,

Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
Donald P. Harbison (dpharbison)
Drew Jensen (atjensen)
Jian Hong Cheng (chengjh)
Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
Kay Schenk (kschenk)
Louis Suarez-Potts (louis)
Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
Regina Henschel (regina)
Wang Lei (leiw)

regards,
zhangjf


On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Andrew Rist  wrote:
> Here's a quick update with the progress so far.
>
>  * We have had 14 people provide lists.
>  * 32 people have been identified (listed below)
>  * 22 people have shown up more than twice, 3 people are on 10 lists.
>  * I think we cover 5 continents, and a pretty wide distribution by
>self appointed tasks
>
> Here's the current list of names (alphabetical by first name)
>
>
>Andre Fischer (af)
>Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
>Andrew Rist (arist)
>Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch)
>Armin Le Grand (alg)
>Claudio Filho (filhocf)
>Dave Fischer (wave)
>Donald Harbison (dpharbison)
>Drew Jensen (atjensen)
>Hagar Delest (hagar)
>Herbert Duerr (hdu)
>
>Ian Lynch (ingotian)
>Jian Fang Zhang (zhangjf)
>Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
>Kay Schenk (kschenk)
>Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
>Louis Suarez-Potts (louis)
>Maho NAKATA (maho)
>Marcus Lange (marcus)
>Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
>Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
>Peter Junge (pj)
>Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
>
>Regina Henschel (regina)
>RGB.ES (rgb-es)
>Rob Weir (robweir)
>Roberto Galoppini (galoppini)
>Shen Feng Liu (liushenfeng)
>Thomas J. Frazier (yj)
>
>Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
>Yong Lin Ma (mayongl)
>Yuri Dario (ydario)
>
> If you have not provided your list yet (and especially if you think someone
> is missing...)
> There is no better time than now!
>
> A.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9/20/2012 10:49 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> To clarify:
>>
>> 1) I'll put together my list of 10 on Sunday.
>>
>> 2) I agree with Louis that a wiki page that lists the names so far makes
>> sense, but I don't think it should have counts until the process is done.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 12:08 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave, I'm puzzled.
>>>
>>> I thought this thread and the one on which nominations are being made was
>>> at the initiative of Andrew Rist.
>>>
>>> Are you and he collaborating on compilation of the results?
>>>
>>> It would be great if there was a single compilation of the results, it
>>> could be verified by anyone, and there can be subsequent discussion on what
>>> to make of it, if anything.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 06:06
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List
>>>
>>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Ross Gardler 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20 September 2012 11:49, sebb  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Once a PMC exists, new members must be nominated and discussed on the
>>>>> private@tlp list.
>>>>> Votes are held on the private list, so is not secret, but it is not
>>>>> public either.
>>>>
>>>> There are very few *must* items in the ASF. In fact it is up to the
>>>> PMC to decide how and where the decision is made. When voting on
>>>> people most, but not all, projects do it in private.
>>>
>>> Apache POI is an example. The PMC considers the public vote to be an
>>> incentive for contributors. Since votes happen very infrequently it does not
>>> add a lot of traffic to the lists.
>>>
>>> I think that process here is proceeding well. I hope to put together a
>>> list on Sunday when I return home.
>>>
>>> If a wiki is created before then perhaps it should list only names
>>> without a count. That way we can all see if anyone is missing.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>> Ross
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Alexandro Colorado]

I think he said mkt

On 9/20/12, Louis Suárez-Potts  wrote:
>
> On 12-09-20, at 18:43 , Albino B Neto  wrote:
>
>> I am subscribe in lists of AOO: announce, commits, dev, l10n, mkt,
>> pvt, qa, user.
>
> What, not marketing?
> :-)
>
> Louis
>
>


-- 
Alexandro Colorado
PPMC Apache OpenOffice
http://es.openoffice.org

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Louis Suárez-Potts]

On 12-09-20, at 18:43 , Albino B Neto  wrote:

> I am subscribe in lists of AOO: announce, commits, dev, l10n, mkt,
> pvt, qa, user.

What, not marketing?
:-)

Louis

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Albino B Neto]

Hi.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Rist  wrote:
> If you have not provided your list yet (and especially if you think someone
> is missing...)
> There is no better time than now!

+1

- Albino Neto (bino28)

I am not away, returning slowly, after work personal. (:

I am subscribe in lists of AOO: announce, commits, dev, l10n, mkt,
pvt, qa, user.

Albino

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Louis Suárez-Potts]

My list:

(Haven't had time to do the wiki; been involved in meets and -ings.)
 
This is a provisional list. Given the nature of the beast, it is meant to 
propose those who can broaden the project's ambit and reach, and it also does a 
pitiful job of that.
-louis



  Dave Fischer (wave)
  Donald Harbison (dpharbison)
  Drew Jensen (atjensen)
  ürgen Schmidt (jsc)
  Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
  Louis Suarez-Potts (louis)
  Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
  Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
  Regina Henschel (regina)
  RGB.ES (rgb-es)

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[David McKay]

On 20/09/12 19:32, Andrew Rist wrote:

Here's a quick update with the progress so far.

 * We have had 14 people provide lists.
 * 32 people have been identified (listed below)
 * 22 people have shown up more than twice, 3 people are on 10 lists.
 * I think we cover 5 continents, and a pretty wide distribution by
   self appointed tasks

Here's the current list of names (alphabetical by first name)

   Andre Fischer (af)
   Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
   Andrew Rist (arist)
   Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch)
   Armin Le Grand (alg)
   Claudio Filho (filhocf)
   Dave Fischer (wave)
   Donald Harbison (dpharbison)
   Drew Jensen (atjensen)
   Hagar Delest (hagar)
   Herbert Duerr (hdu)
   Ian Lynch (ingotian)
   Jian Fang Zhang (zhangjf)
   Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
   Kay Schenk (kschenk)
   Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
   Louis Suarez-Potts (louis)
   Maho NAKATA (maho)
   Marcus Lange (marcus)
   Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
   Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
   Peter Junge (pj)
   Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
   Regina Henschel (regina)
   RGB.ES (rgb-es)
   Rob Weir (robweir)
   Roberto Galoppini (galoppini)
   Shen Feng Liu (liushenfeng)
   Thomas J. Frazier (yj)
   Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
   Yong Lin Ma (mayongl)
   Yuri Dario (ydario)

If you have not provided your list yet (and especially if you think 
someone is missing...)

There is no better time than now!

A.


Here's my list:

Dave Fischer
Donald Harbison
Drew Jensen
Hagar Delest
Wolf Halton
Ian Lynch
Jürgen Schmidt
Pedro Giffuni
Peter Junge
RGB.ES

Dave.




On 9/20/2012 10:49 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:

To clarify:

1) I'll put together my list of 10 on Sunday.

2) I agree with Louis that a wiki page that lists the names so far 
makes sense, but I don't think it should have counts until the 
process is done.


Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 20, 2012, at 12:08 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" 
 wrote:



Dave, I'm puzzled.

I thought this thread and the one on which nominations are being 
made was at the initiative of Andrew Rist.


Are you and he collaborating on compilation of the results?

It would be great if there was a single compilation of the results, 
it could be verified by anyone, and there can be subsequent 
discussion on what to make of it, if anything.


- Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 06:06
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

On Sep 20, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Ross Gardler 
 wrote:



On 20 September 2012 11:49, sebb  wrote:

Once a PMC exists, new members must be nominated and discussed on the
private@tlp list.
Votes are held on the private list, so is not secret, but it is not
public either.

There are very few *must* items in the ASF. In fact it is up to the
PMC to decide how and where the decision is made. When voting on
people most, but not all, projects do it in private.
Apache POI is an example. The PMC considers the public vote to be an 
incentive for contributors. Since votes happen very infrequently it 
does not add a lot of traffic to the lists.


I think that process here is proceeding well. I hope to put together 
a list on Sunday when I return home.


If a wiki is created before then perhaps it should list only names 
without a count. That way we can all see if anyone is missing.


Regards,
Dave


Ross

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Andrew Rist]

Here's a quick update with the progress so far.

 * We have had 14 people provide lists.
 * 32 people have been identified (listed below)
 * 22 people have shown up more than twice, 3 people are on 10 lists.
 * I think we cover 5 continents, and a pretty wide distribution by
   self appointed tasks

Here's the current list of names (alphabetical by first name)

   Andre Fischer (af)
   Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
   Andrew Rist (arist)
   Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch)
   Armin Le Grand (alg)
   Claudio Filho (filhocf)
   Dave Fischer (wave)
   Donald Harbison (dpharbison)
   Drew Jensen (atjensen)
   Hagar Delest (hagar)
   Herbert Duerr (hdu)
   Ian Lynch (ingotian)
   Jian Fang Zhang (zhangjf)
   Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
   Kay Schenk (kschenk)
   Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
   Louis Suarez-Potts (louis)
   Maho NAKATA (maho)
   Marcus Lange (marcus)
   Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
   Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
   Peter Junge (pj)
   Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
   Regina Henschel (regina)
   RGB.ES (rgb-es)
   Rob Weir (robweir)
   Roberto Galoppini (galoppini)
   Shen Feng Liu (liushenfeng)
   Thomas J. Frazier (yj)
   Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
   Yong Lin Ma (mayongl)
   Yuri Dario (ydario)

If you have not provided your list yet (and especially if you think 
someone is missing...)

There is no better time than now!

A.




On 9/20/2012 10:49 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:

To clarify:

1) I'll put together my list of 10 on Sunday.

2) I agree with Louis that a wiki page that lists the names so far makes sense, 
but I don't think it should have counts until the process is done.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 20, 2012, at 12:08 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton"  wrote:


Dave, I'm puzzled.

I thought this thread and the one on which nominations are being made was at 
the initiative of Andrew Rist.

Are you and he collaborating on compilation of the results?

It would be great if there was a single compilation of the results, it could be 
verified by anyone, and there can be subsequent discussion on what to make of 
it, if anything.

- Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 06:06
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

On Sep 20, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Ross Gardler  wrote:


On 20 September 2012 11:49, sebb  wrote:

Once a PMC exists, new members must be nominated and discussed on the
private@tlp list.
Votes are held on the private list, so is not secret, but it is not
public either.

There are very few *must* items in the ASF. In fact it is up to the
PMC to decide how and where the decision is made. When voting on
people most, but not all, projects do it in private.

Apache POI is an example. The PMC considers the public vote to be an incentive 
for contributors. Since votes happen very infrequently it does not add a lot of 
traffic to the lists.

I think that process here is proceeding well. I hope to put together a list on 
Sunday when I return home.

If a wiki is created before then perhaps it should list only names without a 
count. That way we can all see if anyone is missing.

Regards,
Dave


Ross

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Dave Fisher]

To clarify:

1) I'll put together my list of 10 on Sunday.

2) I agree with Louis that a wiki page that lists the names so far makes sense, 
but I don't think it should have counts until the process is done.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 20, 2012, at 12:08 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton"  wrote:

> Dave, I'm puzzled.  
> 
> I thought this thread and the one on which nominations are being made was at 
> the initiative of Andrew Rist.
> 
> Are you and he collaborating on compilation of the results?
> 
> It would be great if there was a single compilation of the results, it could 
> be verified by anyone, and there can be subsequent discussion on what to make 
> of it, if anything.
> 
> - Dennis
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 06:06
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List
> 
> On Sep 20, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Ross Gardler  wrote:
> 
>> On 20 September 2012 11:49, sebb  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Once a PMC exists, new members must be nominated and discussed on the
>>> private@tlp list.
>>> Votes are held on the private list, so is not secret, but it is not
>>> public either.
>> 
>> There are very few *must* items in the ASF. In fact it is up to the
>> PMC to decide how and where the decision is made. When voting on
>> people most, but not all, projects do it in private.
> 
> Apache POI is an example. The PMC considers the public vote to be an 
> incentive for contributors. Since votes happen very infrequently it does not 
> add a lot of traffic to the lists.
> 
> I think that process here is proceeding well. I hope to put together a list 
> on Sunday when I return home.
> 
> If a wiki is created before then perhaps it should list only names without a 
> count. That way we can all see if anyone is missing.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
>> 
>> Ross
> 

RE: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Just for clarification, please.

When you say voting is secret for ASF members and Board members, that there is 
a way to ensure only eligible voters cast at most one ballot, but the voters 
are not identified?  That is, it is not known who voted and what their vote was?

That is generally what is meant by a secret ballot.  A private ballot is one 
where the participants know what votes were cast (as in the case of a committer 
vote on a private list) but the individual votes are not available generally, 
although the vote can be audited by authorities having oversight (as in the 
committer vote case).

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 02:49
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[ ... ]

ASF members are nominated on the members list (and in members-only files).
ASF member voting is secret.

Board members are nominated on the members list.
Voting is secret.

[ ... ]

RE: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Dave, I'm puzzled.  

I thought this thread and the one on which nominations are being made was at 
the initiative of Andrew Rist.

Are you and he collaborating on compilation of the results?

It would be great if there was a single compilation of the results, it could be 
verified by anyone, and there can be subsequent discussion on what to make of 
it, if anything.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 06:06
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

On Sep 20, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Ross Gardler  wrote:

> On 20 September 2012 11:49, sebb  wrote:
>> 
>> Once a PMC exists, new members must be nominated and discussed on the
>> private@tlp list.
>> Votes are held on the private list, so is not secret, but it is not
>> public either.
> 
> There are very few *must* items in the ASF. In fact it is up to the
> PMC to decide how and where the decision is made. When voting on
> people most, but not all, projects do it in private.

Apache POI is an example. The PMC considers the public vote to be an incentive 
for contributors. Since votes happen very infrequently it does not add a lot of 
traffic to the lists.

I think that process here is proceeding well. I hope to put together a list on 
Sunday when I return home.

If a wiki is created before then perhaps it should list only names without a 
count. That way we can all see if anyone is missing.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> Ross

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Dave Fisher]

On Sep 20, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Ross Gardler  wrote:

> On 20 September 2012 11:49, sebb  wrote:
>> 
>> Once a PMC exists, new members must be nominated and discussed on the
>> private@tlp list.
>> Votes are held on the private list, so is not secret, but it is not
>> public either.
> 
> There are very few *must* items in the ASF. In fact it is up to the
> PMC to decide how and where the decision is made. When voting on
> people most, but not all, projects do it in private.

Apache POI is an example. The PMC considers the public vote to be an incentive 
for contributors. Since votes happen very infrequently it does not add a lot of 
traffic to the lists.

I think that process here is proceeding well. I hope to put together a list on 
Sunday when I return home.

If a wiki is created before then perhaps it should list only names without a 
count. That way we can all see if anyone is missing.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> Ross

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Ross Gardler]

On 20 September 2012 11:49, sebb  wrote:
>
> Once a PMC exists, new members must be nominated and discussed on the
> private@tlp list.
> Votes are held on the private list, so is not secret, but it is not
> public either.

There are very few *must* items in the ASF. In fact it is up to the
PMC to decide how and where the decision is made. When voting on
people most, but not all, projects do it in private.

Ross

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[sebb]

On 20 September 2012 07:45, Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
> RGB ES wrote:
>>
>> 2012/9/19 Dennis E. Hamilton
>>>
>>> I recommend that the process continue.  My only objection is that having
>>> secret nominations is not compatible with the Apache Way ...
>>>
>>> I recommend that no one accept nominations privately and that those who
>>> have already sent theirs via any back-channel use ooo-private
>
>
> OK. The important thing is that the process can continue. It might well be
> that nobody prefers to state his preferences in private (meaning: somewhere
> else than ooo-dev): as I wrote, it was not a personal concern, I just
> wondered if allowing it would increase participation in this nomination
> phase (and at the same time I encouraged those, if any, who preferred secret
> nominations/lists to speak up, and nobody did so far, which probably means I
> was simply wrong and everybody is fine with public nominations/lists).
>
>
>> +1 (Even if I see no point on hiding the vote).
>
>
> I was going to answer that secret ballot is a basic principle, but indeed,
> now that I think about it, it might be that there is no such thing as a
> "secret ballot" in the Apache way, at least for normal operations...
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html does not mention this
> possibility.

AFAIK that applies to code and releases only, not people.

Once a PMC exists, new members must be nominated and discussed on the
private@tlp list.
Votes are held on the private list, so is not secret, but it is not
public either.

ASF members are nominated on the members list (and in members-only files).
ASF member voting is secret.

Board members are nominated on the members list.
Voting is secret.

> Good to know. But we can come back to this at a later stage and
> let the current nomination phase continue.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Andrea Pescetti]

RGB ES wrote:

2012/9/19 Dennis E. Hamilton

I recommend that the process continue.  My only objection is that having
secret nominations is not compatible with the Apache Way ...
I recommend that no one accept nominations privately and that those who
have already sent theirs via any back-channel use ooo-private


OK. The important thing is that the process can continue. It might well 
be that nobody prefers to state his preferences in private (meaning: 
somewhere else than ooo-dev): as I wrote, it was not a personal concern, 
I just wondered if allowing it would increase participation in this 
nomination phase (and at the same time I encouraged those, if any, who 
preferred secret nominations/lists to speak up, and nobody did so far, 
which probably means I was simply wrong and everybody is fine with 
public nominations/lists).



+1 (Even if I see no point on hiding the vote).


I was going to answer that secret ballot is a basic principle, but 
indeed, now that I think about it, it might be that there is no such 
thing as a "secret ballot" in the Apache way, at least for normal 
operations... http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html does not 
mention this possibility. Good to know. But we can come back to this at 
a later stage and let the current nomination phase continue.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Louis Suárez-Potts]

On 12-09-19, at 17:05 , Ross Gardler  wrote:

> I don't object to this process. But lets be clear, PMC membership is
> *not* a popularity contest, it's a recognition of merit. So the number
> of nominations is irrelevant, more nominations just means that the
> individual has been seen by more people. Sometimes merit stuff is not
> visible to many, e.g. I know how much effort some members of this PPMC
> have put into the AOO track at ACEU, most of that work is invisible
> here so only one or two people will recognise that merit.

It's interesting to me that what counts as "merit" is necessarily ill defined. 
"necessarily" because I should think it is up to the emerging PMC or governing 
group to define. So, as Ross underscores with his example of the ACEU 
(ApacheCon EU) that it is not just about coding; merit can be gained and 
meritorious work be identified, by non-coding activity, as managing the ACEU 
evidences. 

What counts, as I see it, is promoting the ApacheOO effort. That entails, I 
believe, not just the coding that is needed to make an application that can be 
used safely, confidently, surely by enterprises and individuals around the 
world, but also in actually promoting that application and its use among likely 
users.

"Merit" here is valued in terms of your contribution to the project overall.

It's for that reason that I feel it important that people who would want to 
contribute and help in managing the project understand the radically democratic 
nature of this project and its management. This is not the old OOo. This is 
new. 


> 
> This is not an objection to the process being followed, just an
> objection to the idea that the number of "nominations" is important.
> 
> Ross

Louis
> 
> On 19 September 2012 21:06, RGB ES  wrote:
>> 2012/9/19 Dennis E. Hamilton 
>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> There is absolutely nothing wrong with a list process for individuals
>>> nominating 10 persons for the PPMC.  Furthermore, let's have just one
>>> procedure in place at a time.  When this one is concluded, there will be
>>> occasion to reflect and determine the next steps.
>>> 
>>> The tabulation will be very interesting, since we'll know the frequency
>>> with which various individuals are nominated by others.  That's an useful
>>> straw poll.  What is made of it is something that will happen in full view
>>> and without haste.
>>> 
>>> Furthermore, there is no need to discuss or justify the nominations being
>>> made.  (There is not much value in nominating individuals who have declined
>>> to be on the PMC, but there's no harm either.)
>>> 
>>> I recommend that the process continue.  My only objection is that having
>>> secret nominations is not compatible with the Apache Way and the oversight
>>> responsibilities of the ASF.  There are private ballots, but not secret
>>> ones as far as I know.
>>> 
>>> I recommend that no one accept nominations privately and that those who
>>> have already sent theirs via any back-channel use ooo-private if they do
>>> not want their selection of names made public.
>> 
>> 
>> +1 (Even if I see no point on hiding the vote).
>> 
>> Regards
>> Ricardo
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> (Since there are no -1 votes, and everybody is constrained to 10, I have
>>> trouble seeing the problem.)  There is no reason to identify those who have
>>> nominated anyone on the consolidated report.
>>> 
>>> - Dennis
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:26
>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 09/19/2012 10:38 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>> [ ... ]
>>>> In this way, a wiki can provide more than a mail list post.
>>>> 
>>>> Louis
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, a wiki can provide more than a mail post, but I think this exercise
>>> is valid, and provides a convenient way for *anyone* on this list to
>>> express an "opinion" without explicitly stating why. I actually think
>>> this is a point in the mailing lists favor. This approach is simple and
>>> based on impressions of individuals involved with this project. I don't
>>> see much wrong with that. Picking "10" has been difficult for all of us,
>>> but I did understand that "10" was not a magic number for the final PMC.
>>> 
>>> I agree with Juergen that we should complete this circle. I've found it
>>> pretty interesting so far.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> MzK
>>> 
>>> "We never sit anything out. We are cups, constantly and quietly
>>>  being filled.  The trick is, knowing how to tip ourselves over and
>>>  let the beautiful stuff out."
>>>  -- Ray Bradbury, "Zen in the Art of Writing"
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Ross Gardler]

I don't object to this process. But lets be clear, PMC membership is
*not* a popularity contest, it's a recognition of merit. So the number
of nominations is irrelevant, more nominations just means that the
individual has been seen by more people. Sometimes merit stuff is not
visible to many, e.g. I know how much effort some members of this PPMC
have put into the AOO track at ACEU, most of that work is invisible
here so only one or two people will recognise that merit.

This is not an objection to the process being followed, just an
objection to the idea that the number of "nominations" is important.

Ross

On 19 September 2012 21:06, RGB ES  wrote:
> 2012/9/19 Dennis E. Hamilton 
>
>> +1
>>
>> There is absolutely nothing wrong with a list process for individuals
>> nominating 10 persons for the PPMC.  Furthermore, let's have just one
>> procedure in place at a time.  When this one is concluded, there will be
>> occasion to reflect and determine the next steps.
>>
>> The tabulation will be very interesting, since we'll know the frequency
>> with which various individuals are nominated by others.  That's an useful
>> straw poll.  What is made of it is something that will happen in full view
>> and without haste.
>>
>> Furthermore, there is no need to discuss or justify the nominations being
>> made.  (There is not much value in nominating individuals who have declined
>> to be on the PMC, but there's no harm either.)
>>
>> I recommend that the process continue.  My only objection is that having
>> secret nominations is not compatible with the Apache Way and the oversight
>> responsibilities of the ASF.  There are private ballots, but not secret
>> ones as far as I know.
>>
>> I recommend that no one accept nominations privately and that those who
>> have already sent theirs via any back-channel use ooo-private if they do
>> not want their selection of names made public.
>
>
> +1 (Even if I see no point on hiding the vote).
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
>
>
>> (Since there are no -1 votes, and everybody is constrained to 10, I have
>> trouble seeing the problem.)  There is no reason to identify those who have
>> nominated anyone on the consolidated report.
>>
>>  - Dennis
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:26
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/19/2012 10:38 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>> > In this way, a wiki can provide more than a mail list post.
>> >
>> > Louis
>> >
>>
>> Yes, a wiki can provide more than a mail post, but I think this exercise
>> is valid, and provides a convenient way for *anyone* on this list to
>> express an "opinion" without explicitly stating why. I actually think
>> this is a point in the mailing lists favor. This approach is simple and
>> based on impressions of individuals involved with this project. I don't
>> see much wrong with that. Picking "10" has been difficult for all of us,
>> but I did understand that "10" was not a magic number for the final PMC.
>>
>> I agree with Juergen that we should complete this circle. I've found it
>> pretty interesting so far.
>>
>> --
>> 
>> MzK
>>
>> "We never sit anything out. We are cups, constantly and quietly
>>   being filled.  The trick is, knowing how to tip ourselves over and
>>   let the beautiful stuff out."
>>   -- Ray Bradbury, "Zen in the Art of Writing"
>>
>>



-- 
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[RGB ES]

2012/9/19 Dennis E. Hamilton 

> +1
>
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with a list process for individuals
> nominating 10 persons for the PPMC.  Furthermore, let's have just one
> procedure in place at a time.  When this one is concluded, there will be
> occasion to reflect and determine the next steps.
>
> The tabulation will be very interesting, since we'll know the frequency
> with which various individuals are nominated by others.  That's an useful
> straw poll.  What is made of it is something that will happen in full view
> and without haste.
>
> Furthermore, there is no need to discuss or justify the nominations being
> made.  (There is not much value in nominating individuals who have declined
> to be on the PMC, but there's no harm either.)
>
> I recommend that the process continue.  My only objection is that having
> secret nominations is not compatible with the Apache Way and the oversight
> responsibilities of the ASF.  There are private ballots, but not secret
> ones as far as I know.
>
> I recommend that no one accept nominations privately and that those who
> have already sent theirs via any back-channel use ooo-private if they do
> not want their selection of names made public.


+1 (Even if I see no point on hiding the vote).

Regards
Ricardo



> (Since there are no -1 votes, and everybody is constrained to 10, I have
> trouble seeing the problem.)  There is no reason to identify those who have
> nominated anyone on the consolidated report.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:26
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List
>
>
>
> On 09/19/2012 10:38 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> [ ... ]
> > In this way, a wiki can provide more than a mail list post.
> >
> > Louis
> >
>
> Yes, a wiki can provide more than a mail post, but I think this exercise
> is valid, and provides a convenient way for *anyone* on this list to
> express an "opinion" without explicitly stating why. I actually think
> this is a point in the mailing lists favor. This approach is simple and
> based on impressions of individuals involved with this project. I don't
> see much wrong with that. Picking "10" has been difficult for all of us,
> but I did understand that "10" was not a magic number for the final PMC.
>
> I agree with Juergen that we should complete this circle. I've found it
> pretty interesting so far.
>
> --
> 
> MzK
>
> "We never sit anything out. We are cups, constantly and quietly
>   being filled.  The trick is, knowing how to tip ourselves over and
>   let the beautiful stuff out."
>   -- Ray Bradbury, "Zen in the Art of Writing"
>
>

RE: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

+1

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a list process for individuals 
nominating 10 persons for the PPMC.  Furthermore, let's have just one procedure 
in place at a time.  When this one is concluded, there will be occasion to 
reflect and determine the next steps.

The tabulation will be very interesting, since we'll know the frequency with 
which various individuals are nominated by others.  That's an useful straw 
poll.  What is made of it is something that will happen in full view and 
without haste.

Furthermore, there is no need to discuss or justify the nominations being made. 
 (There is not much value in nominating individuals who have declined to be on 
the PMC, but there's no harm either.)

I recommend that the process continue.  My only objection is that having secret 
nominations is not compatible with the Apache Way and the oversight 
responsibilities of the ASF.  There are private ballots, but not secret ones as 
far as I know.  

I recommend that no one accept nominations privately and that those who have 
already sent theirs via any back-channel use ooo-private if they do not want 
their selection of names made public.  (Since there are no -1 votes, and 
everybody is constrained to 10, I have trouble seeing the problem.)  There is 
no reason to identify those who have nominated anyone on the consolidated 
report.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:26
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List



On 09/19/2012 10:38 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
[ ... ]
> In this way, a wiki can provide more than a mail list post.
>
> Louis
>

Yes, a wiki can provide more than a mail post, but I think this exercise 
is valid, and provides a convenient way for *anyone* on this list to 
express an "opinion" without explicitly stating why. I actually think 
this is a point in the mailing lists favor. This approach is simple and 
based on impressions of individuals involved with this project. I don't 
see much wrong with that. Picking "10" has been difficult for all of us, 
but I did understand that "10" was not a magic number for the final PMC.

I agree with Juergen that we should complete this circle. I've found it 
pretty interesting so far.

-- 

MzK

"We never sit anything out. We are cups, constantly and quietly
  being filled.  The trick is, knowing how to tip ourselves over and
  let the beautiful stuff out."
  -- Ray Bradbury, "Zen in the Art of Writing"

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Juergen Schmidt]

Am Mittwoch, 19. September 2012 um 21:26 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>  
>  
> On 09/19/2012 10:38 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> >  
> > On 12-09-19, at 12:09 , Rob Weir  wrote:
> >  
> > > How would you deal with "opacity here as to how these names were
> > > suggested"? These are individual's stated preferences. Nothing
> > > more, nothing less. Unless we require that everyone give a
> > > complete, detailed justification for every name they pick, what can
> > > we do? A wiki certainly doesn't change that.
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > It depends on how the wiki is set up. For instance, the header of the
> > wiki could state, as the subject line here does,
> > "Preference/Proposed…." and then go on in one sentence to explain,
> > "the names proposed derive from the overall committer list (or
> > whatever) and are those valued by the individual proposer. The final
> > PMC list itself will likely change as the project evolves and will be
> > composed of those names suggested here." It could then clarify who is
> > able to propose names and stipulate a deadline.
> >  
> > Further, it could clarify that in future, a different process
> > operate, and that this process now is essentially ad hoc to resolve a
> > late-summer slowdown stalemate.
> >  
> > This page could further clarify what other pages do: the point of the
> > PMC.
> >  
> > In this way, a wiki can provide more than a mail list post.
> >  
> > Louis
>  
> Yes, a wiki can provide more than a mail post, but I think this exercise  
> is valid, and provides a convenient way for *anyone* on this list to  
> express an "opinion" without explicitly stating why. I actually think  
> this is a point in the mailing lists favor. This approach is simple and  
> based on impressions of individuals involved with this project. I don't  
> see much wrong with that. Picking "10" has been difficult for all of us,  
> but I did understand that "10" was not a magic number for the final PMC.
>  
> I agree with Juergen that we should complete this circle. I've found it  
> pretty interesting so far.
>  
>  

indeed, some interesting observations.

But more surprising again is the late feedback.

I am trying to give a hint for all who haven't expressed their own opinion yet. 
 If you don't have new names that you would like to see on the list, you can 
abstain or can repeat names to highlight your agreement on these names. If you 
feel a name is missing feel free to nominate 10 names with the missing 
name/names included. It's quite simple, isn't it? We are open for new names and 
I believe that people who are really interested in this have followed all the 
discussions. It's a one time process to define a PMC, I think well documented 
and archived on the mailing list. Nothing that we have to document forever. But 
anyway if people think it's necessary, why not.  

Juergen
>  
> --  
> 
> MzK
>  
> "We never sit anything out. We are cups, constantly and quietly
> being filled. The trick is, knowing how to tip ourselves over and
> let the beautiful stuff out."
> -- Ray Bradbury, "Zen in the Art of Writing"
>  
>  

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Kay Schenk]

On 09/19/2012 10:38 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:


On 12-09-19, at 12:09 , Rob Weir  wrote:


How would you deal with "opacity here as to how these names were
suggested"?  These are individual's stated preferences.  Nothing
more, nothing less.  Unless we require that everyone give a
complete, detailed justification for every name they pick, what can
we do?  A wiki certainly doesn't change that.



It depends on how the wiki is set up. For instance, the header of the
wiki could state, as the subject line here does,
"Preference/Proposed…." and then go on in one sentence to explain,
"the names proposed derive from the overall committer list (or
whatever) and are those valued by the individual proposer. The final
PMC list itself will likely change as the project evolves and will be
composed of those names suggested here." It could then clarify who is
able to propose names and stipulate a deadline.

Further, it could clarify that in future, a different process
operate, and that this process now is essentially ad hoc to resolve a
late-summer slowdown stalemate.

This page could further clarify what other pages do: the point of the
PMC.

In this way, a wiki can provide more than a mail list post.

Louis



Yes, a wiki can provide more than a mail post, but I think this exercise 
is valid, and provides a convenient way for *anyone* on this list to 
express an "opinion" without explicitly stating why. I actually think 
this is a point in the mailing lists favor. This approach is simple and 
based on impressions of individuals involved with this project. I don't 
see much wrong with that. Picking "10" has been difficult for all of us, 
but I did understand that "10" was not a magic number for the final PMC.


I agree with Juergen that we should complete this circle. I've found it 
pretty interesting so far.


--

MzK

"We never sit anything out. We are cups, constantly and quietly
 being filled.  The trick is, knowing how to tip ourselves over and
 let the beautiful stuff out."
 -- Ray Bradbury, "Zen in the Art of Writing"

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Rob Weir]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts  wrote:
>
> On 12-09-19, at 12:09 , Rob Weir  wrote:
>
>> How would you deal with "opacity here as to how these names were
>> suggested"?  These are individual's stated preferences.  Nothing more,
>> nothing less.  Unless we require that everyone give a complete,
>> detailed justification for every name they pick, what can we do?  A
>> wiki certainly doesn't change that.
>
>
> It depends on how the wiki is set up. For instance, the header of the wiki 
> could state, as the subject line here does, "Preference/Proposed…." and then 
> go on in one sentence to explain, "the names proposed derive from the overall 
> committer list (or whatever) and are those valued by the individual proposer. 
> The final PMC list itself will likely change as the project evolves and will 
> be composed of those names suggested here." It could then clarify who is able 
> to propose names and stipulate a deadline.
>
> Further, it could clarify that in future, a different process operate, and 
> that this process now is essentially ad hoc to resolve a late-summer slowdown 
> stalemate.
>
> This page could further clarify what other pages do: the point of the PMC.
>
> In this way, a wiki can provide more than a mail list post.
>

That is easy enough to set up if you want to.  The posts to date in
this thread could easily be transcribed into such wiki.  This could be
done now, or at the end of Andrew's proposed one week.

Personally I don't have a strong preference for a wiki over the
mailing list.  Maybe it helps tie the loose threads together related
to this topic that a casual observer might not understand.  In any
case, no objections if you want to do this.

-Rob


> Louis

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Louis Suárez-Potts]

On 12-09-19, at 12:09 , Rob Weir  wrote:

> How would you deal with "opacity here as to how these names were
> suggested"?  These are individual's stated preferences.  Nothing more,
> nothing less.  Unless we require that everyone give a complete,
> detailed justification for every name they pick, what can we do?  A
> wiki certainly doesn't change that.


It depends on how the wiki is set up. For instance, the header of the wiki 
could state, as the subject line here does, "Preference/Proposed…." and then go 
on in one sentence to explain, "the names proposed derive from the overall 
committer list (or whatever) and are those valued by the individual proposer. 
The final PMC list itself will likely change as the project evolves and will be 
composed of those names suggested here." It could then clarify who is able to 
propose names and stipulate a deadline.

Further, it could clarify that in future, a different process operate, and that 
this process now is essentially ad hoc to resolve a late-summer slowdown 
stalemate. 

This page could further clarify what other pages do: the point of the PMC. 

In this way, a wiki can provide more than a mail list post.

Louis

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Louis Suárez-Potts]

Hi,

On 12-09-19, at 10:29 , "Dennis E. Hamilton"  wrote:

> -1 
> 
> This procedure lacks transparency and accountability.  It is incompatible 
> with how project governance is accomplished.
> 
> My recommendation is that those who have some reason to require anonymity 
> with regard to their nominations (that is what it is, individuals are asked 
> to make 10 nominations) should send their nominations to ooo-private@ 
> incubator.apache.org.
> 
> The subject should contain "[PMC] Proposed PMC List" and it should not 
> contain any discussion.  These are simply nominations.  The moderators of 
> ooo-private will accept those posts from all sources.
> 
> When the compilation of nominations is prepared, *all* submitters of 
> nominations will be identified in a list as confirmation that their 
> nominations were included.  There should be no identification of who has 
> nominated a particular individual.  Only the number of nominations for any 
> nominated individual should be reported.
> 
> It would be useful to have the report double-checked by one or more PPMC 
> members to ensure that noone's nominations were overlooked or double counted. 
>  (On duplicate nominations, the usual rule is to use the latest one received.)

I agree with Dennis' comments and suggest that we not use the list for 
nominations (top ten list) but rather for notice of a live list at a wiki that 
can be made more transparent. The point is that the list via email becomes 
sedimented, so that the most recent agreements stay surface, the logic buried, 
and this sedimentation eliminates the real nature of the PMC dynamic.

louis
> 
> - Dennis
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Rist [mailto:andrew.r...@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 16:00
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List
> 
> (top posting after private messages - I cannot describe the shame I 
> feel...  ;-)
> 
> I have an option that I believe will handle Andrea's concerns.  I have 
> spoken with Ross and he is amenable to receiving Proposed PMC entries 
> off list.
> If anyone is concerned about sending their list to ooo-dev, you can send 
> it to Ross ( rgardler at apache) instead, and at the end of the period 
> (next Sunday), he will send an anonymized summary of the votes he has 
> received, along with a breakdown of submissions by committers/PPMC vs 
> other community members.
> 
> We have received lists from 10 people and have 25 nominees with multiple 
> votes.  It would be great to get even more feedback.
> 
> A.
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/18/2012 1:17 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> On 17/09/2012 Andrew Rist wrote:
>>> * This is not a vote. This is a search for consensus. Please no '-1'
>>> replies. Let's see what this process produces, and then discuss
>>> from there.
>> 
>> It seems that the process is working quite well, and that we are on 
>> the right way to bootstrap a PMC by consensus.
>> 
>> I surely don't want to block the current process, but I wonder if 
>> allowing people to "vote" (actually, express preferences) anonymously 
>> would be better for some volunteers/cultures. Our mentors have often 
>> stated that we have secure voting solutions available, but maybe this 
>> is overkill and time-consuming, and it would be enough to allow people 
>> to send their lists to a mentor (if available), who would repost them 
>> here.
>> 
>> It is not an issue that I feel personally: it's OK for me to continue 
>> with public messages on ooo-dev. But it could be that others have 
>> problems, and in that case I'd encourage them to speak up so that we 
>> can find a way to ensure that everyone can express their opinions.
>> 
>> Regards,
>>  Andrea.
> 

RE: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Did you mean to do this on the [PMC] Proposed PMC List thread, not the 
[DISCUSS] thread?

-Original Message-
From: Ian Lynch [mailto:ianrly...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 09:22
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

Ok, Andrew persuaded me ;-)

Andre Fischer (af)
Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
Andrew Rist (arist)
Armin Le Grand (alg)
Donald P. Harbison (dpharbison)
Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
Louis Suarez-potts (louis)
Marcus Lange (marcus)
Peter Junge (pj)

But I can think of several others that really could/should be
included. I was trying to get some sort of balance, nationally and by
expertise but might well have failed miserably ;-) Some of it is
simply down to knowing some people better than others.



-- 
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][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Ian Lynch]

Ok, Andrew persuaded me ;-)

Andre Fischer (af)
Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
Andrew Rist (arist)
Armin Le Grand (alg)
Donald P. Harbison (dpharbison)
Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
Louis Suarez-potts (louis)
Marcus Lange (marcus)
Peter Junge (pj)

But I can think of several others that really could/should be
included. I was trying to get some sort of balance, nationally and by
expertise but might well have failed miserably ;-) Some of it is
simply down to knowing some people better than others.



-- 
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][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Rob Weir]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts  wrote:
>
> On 12-09-19, at 10:05 , Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:
>
>> On 9/19/12 3:56 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>>> I would agree with Peter's list but would ask that Ian Lynch be considered. 
>>> Here's why: Whom do we have speaking on behalf of education and ecosystem 
>>> development? As I'm not on this list—and I'm not suggesting I ought to be—I 
>>> think that someone like Ian, who's work is so involved with OO and has 
>>> been—would provide good insight into how what is done at Apache OO affects 
>>> the ecosystem as a whole.
>>>
>>
>> I would first suggest that you and Ian read how the proposal of Andrew
>> was intended to work ;-)
>
> I read it. I find some problems with it. Namely, momentum in threads tends to 
> prevail over nuance and history. There is opacity here as to how these names 
> were suggested, what they mean, how they are supposed to change over time. 
> Andrew's long proposal was just that, a proposal. A better method I'd 
> suggest, if we want to put names up, is to use a wiki, or some other 
> mechanism that foregrounds history, motive, idea.
>

How would you deal with "opacity here as to how these names were
suggested"?  These are individual's stated preferences.  Nothing more,
nothing less.  Unless we require that everyone give a complete,
detailed justification for every name they pick, what can we do?  A
wiki certainly doesn't change that.

>
>>
>> And I am not sure or better don't understand the relation of your
>> comment to the membership in the PMC. It is not directly related to each
>> other and can be of course done independently.
>
> I'll be clearer in future. But for now, I've misgivings over this process and 
> do not like it nor do I believe as such it serves the AOO community well. I 
> think one that reflects the points I mentioned above is better, but am always 
> open to learn of yet better ways.
>
> Louis
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>> Louis
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12-09-19, at 03:40 , Peter Junge  wrote:
>>>
 Here's my list of 10:
 Andrew Rist (arist)
 Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch)
 Donald P. Harbison (dpharbison)
 Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
 Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
 Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
 Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
 RGB.ES (rgb-es)
 Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
 Yong Lin Ma (mayongl)

 (Would have been easier if I were allowed to name 5 or 6 more)

 On 9/18/2012 2:13 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
>
> Andre Fischer (af)
> Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
> Drew Jensen (atjensen)
> Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
> Kay Schenk (kschenk)
> Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
> Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
> Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
> RGB.ES (rgb-es)
>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Louis Suárez-Potts]

On 12-09-19, at 10:05 , Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:

> On 9/19/12 3:56 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>> I would agree with Peter's list but would ask that Ian Lynch be considered. 
>> Here's why: Whom do we have speaking on behalf of education and ecosystem 
>> development? As I'm not on this list—and I'm not suggesting I ought to be—I 
>> think that someone like Ian, who's work is so involved with OO and has 
>> been—would provide good insight into how what is done at Apache OO affects 
>> the ecosystem as a whole.
>> 
> 
> I would first suggest that you and Ian read how the proposal of Andrew
> was intended to work ;-)

I read it. I find some problems with it. Namely, momentum in threads tends to 
prevail over nuance and history. There is opacity here as to how these names 
were suggested, what they mean, how they are supposed to change over time. 
Andrew's long proposal was just that, a proposal. A better method I'd suggest, 
if we want to put names up, is to use a wiki, or some other mechanism that 
foregrounds history, motive, idea. 


> 
> And I am not sure or better don't understand the relation of your
> comment to the membership in the PMC. It is not directly related to each
> other and can be of course done independently.

I'll be clearer in future. But for now, I've misgivings over this process and 
do not like it nor do I believe as such it serves the AOO community well. I 
think one that reflects the points I mentioned above is better, but am always 
open to learn of yet better ways. 

Louis
> 
> Juergen
> 
>> Louis
>> 
>> 
>> On 12-09-19, at 03:40 , Peter Junge  wrote:
>> 
>>> Here's my list of 10:
>>> Andrew Rist (arist)
>>> Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch)
>>> Donald P. Harbison (dpharbison)
>>> Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
>>> Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
>>> Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
>>> Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
>>> RGB.ES (rgb-es)
>>> Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
>>> Yong Lin Ma (mayongl)
>>> 
>>> (Would have been easier if I were allowed to name 5 or 6 more)
>>> 
>>> On 9/18/2012 2:13 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
 
 Andre Fischer (af)
 Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
 Drew Jensen (atjensen)
 Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
 Kay Schenk (kschenk)
 Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
 Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
 Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
 RGB.ES (rgb-es)
 
 
>>> 
>> 
> 

RE: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

-1 

This procedure lacks transparency and accountability.  It is incompatible with 
how project governance is accomplished.

My recommendation is that those who have some reason to require anonymity with 
regard to their nominations (that is what it is, individuals are asked to make 
10 nominations) should send their nominations to ooo-private@ 
incubator.apache.org.

The subject should contain "[PMC] Proposed PMC List" and it should not contain 
any discussion.  These are simply nominations.  The moderators of ooo-private 
will accept those posts from all sources.

When the compilation of nominations is prepared, *all* submitters of 
nominations will be identified in a list as confirmation that their nominations 
were included.  There should be no identification of who has nominated a 
particular individual.  Only the number of nominations for any nominated 
individual should be reported.

It would be useful to have the report double-checked by one or more PPMC 
members to ensure that noone's nominations were overlooked or double counted.  
(On duplicate nominations, the usual rule is to use the latest one received.)

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Andrew Rist [mailto:andrew.r...@oracle.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 16:00
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

(top posting after private messages - I cannot describe the shame I 
feel...  ;-)

I have an option that I believe will handle Andrea's concerns.  I have 
spoken with Ross and he is amenable to receiving Proposed PMC entries 
off list.
If anyone is concerned about sending their list to ooo-dev, you can send 
it to Ross ( rgardler at apache) instead, and at the end of the period 
(next Sunday), he will send an anonymized summary of the votes he has 
received, along with a breakdown of submissions by committers/PPMC vs 
other community members.

We have received lists from 10 people and have 25 nominees with multiple 
votes.  It would be great to get even more feedback.

A.



On 9/18/2012 1:17 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 17/09/2012 Andrew Rist wrote:
>> * This is not a vote. This is a search for consensus. Please no '-1'
>> replies. Let's see what this process produces, and then discuss
>> from there.
>
> It seems that the process is working quite well, and that we are on 
> the right way to bootstrap a PMC by consensus.
>
> I surely don't want to block the current process, but I wonder if 
> allowing people to "vote" (actually, express preferences) anonymously 
> would be better for some volunteers/cultures. Our mentors have often 
> stated that we have secure voting solutions available, but maybe this 
> is overkill and time-consuming, and it would be enough to allow people 
> to send their lists to a mentor (if available), who would repost them 
> here.
>
> It is not an issue that I feel personally: it's OK for me to continue 
> with public messages on ooo-dev. But it could be that others have 
> problems, and in that case I'd encourage them to speak up so that we 
> can find a way to ensure that everyone can express their opinions.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Peter Junge]

On 9/18/2012 2:11 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:

This is the discussion thread - reply to the other thread with your list!

I am opening up a thread for Proposed PMC Lists.

  * I have included below the last pass of the Active/Inactive/Retired
list.  This is for reference, as nothing in that list is binding.
  * Everyone choose up to ten names to propose for the PMC.  The final
list produced by this process will be longer.
  * When considering your list, consider diversity as well as activity,
as we want the final list to cover all aspects of the project.
  * This is not a vote. This is a search for consensus.  Please no '-1'
replies.  Let's see what this process produces, and then discuss
from there.
  * All interested members of the community are welcome to provide
input.  The feedback from committers will be considered more binding.

I will leave the thread open until next Sunday (anything properly
date-stamped before the end of Sept 23 will be included).
I will summarize next Monday and we can take it from there.


That sounds excellent. Sorry, I missed this documentation thread while 
posting the other proposal yesterday.


Peter




(final note - I have my list forming in the other window, and it is hard
to pick just ten names! )

Andrew





PMC list from "Forming a PMC Roster (pass 5)"

==Active==

Albino Neto (bino28)
Allen Pulsifer (apulsifer)
Andre Fischer (af)
Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
Andrew Rist (arist)
Antón Méixome (meixome)
Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch)
Armin Le Grand (alg)
Carl B. Marcum (cmarcum)
Claudio Filho (filhocf)
Cyril Beaussier (bidouille)
Damjan Jovanovic (damjan)
Dave Barton (bmcs)
David Fisher (wave) (Apache Membeber)
David McKay (thegurkha)
Donald P. Harbison (dpharbison)
Drew Jensen (atjensen)
Graham Lauder (yo)
Herbert Dürr (hdu)
Ian Lynch (ingotian)
Jian Fang Zhang (zhangjf)
Jian Hong Cheng (chengjh)
Jim Jagielski (jim) (Apache Membeber)
Jin Hua Chen (chenjinh)
Juan C. Sanz (jucasaca)
Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
Kay Schenk (kschenk)
Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
Louis Suarez-Potts (louis)
Maho NAKATA (maho)
Marcus Lange (marcus)
Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
Peter Junge (pj)
Phillip Rhodes (prhodes)
Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
Regina Henschel (regina)
RGB.ES (rgb-es)
Rob Weir (robweir)
Roberto Galoppini (galoppini)
Roberto Salomon (salomon)
Simon Brouwer (simonbr)
Thomas J. Frazier (yj)
Wang Lei (leiw)
Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
Yong Lin Ma (mayongl)
Yuri Dario (ydario)
Zhe Wang (wangzcdl)
Zoltán Reizinger (r4zoli)

==Not Active==

Arthur Buijs (artietee)
Christian Lippka (clippka)
Christoph Jopp (cjopp)
Eike Rathke (erack)
Florent André (florent)
Frank Peters (fpe)
Ingrid von der Mehden (ingrid)
Ivo Hinkelmann (ivo)
Jomar Silva (homembit)
Kai Ahrens (kahrens)
Kai Sommerfeld (kso)
Lawrence Rosen (lrosen) (Apache Member)
Malte Timmermann (malte)
Manfred A. Reiter (fredao)
Martin Hollmichel (mhollmichel)
Mathias Bauer (mbauer)
Stefan Taxhet (st)
Stephan Bergmann (sb)
Steve Lee (stevelee)
Xia Zhao (lilyzhao)
Yegor Kozlov (yegor) (Apache Member)

== Retired==

Wolf Halton (wolfhalton)(per his request)
Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) (per his request)

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Andrea Pescetti]

Andrew Rist wrote:

If anyone is concerned about sending their list to ooo-dev, you can send
it to Ross ( rgardler at apache) instead, and at the end of the period
(next Sunday), he will send an anonymized summary


Perfect. This is a simple, efficient solution that will help people who 
prefer not to send their lists to ooo-dev. Nobody complained so far, but 
still it's good to offer this option.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Yong Lin Ma]

Here is my ten.

David Fisher (wave)
Donald P. Harbison (dpharbison)
Drew Jensen (atjensen)
Ian Lynch (ingotian)
Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
Louis Suarez-Potts (louis)
Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
Peter Junge (pj)
RGB.ES (rgb-es)
Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)


On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Andrew Rist  wrote:
> (top posting after private messages - I cannot describe the shame I feel...
> ;-)
>
> I have an option that I believe will handle Andrea's concerns.  I have
> spoken with Ross and he is amenable to receiving Proposed PMC entries off
> list.
> If anyone is concerned about sending their list to ooo-dev, you can send it
> to Ross ( rgardler at apache) instead, and at the end of the period (next
> Sunday), he will send an anonymized summary of the votes he has received,
> along with a breakdown of submissions by committers/PPMC vs other community
> members.
>
> We have received lists from 10 people and have 25 nominees with multiple
> votes.  It would be great to get even more feedback.
>
> A.
>
>
>
>
> On 9/18/2012 1:17 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>> On 17/09/2012 Andrew Rist wrote:
>>>
>>> * This is not a vote. This is a search for consensus. Please no '-1'
>>> replies. Let's see what this process produces, and then discuss
>>> from there.
>>
>>
>> It seems that the process is working quite well, and that we are on the
>> right way to bootstrap a PMC by consensus.
>>
>> I surely don't want to block the current process, but I wonder if allowing
>> people to "vote" (actually, express preferences) anonymously would be better
>> for some volunteers/cultures. Our mentors have often stated that we have
>> secure voting solutions available, but maybe this is overkill and
>> time-consuming, and it would be enough to allow people to send their lists
>> to a mentor (if available), who would repost them here.
>>
>> It is not an issue that I feel personally: it's OK for me to continue with
>> public messages on ooo-dev. But it could be that others have problems, and
>> in that case I'd encourage them to speak up so that we can find a way to
>> ensure that everyone can express their opinions.
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Andrea.
>
>



-- 
Regards

Yong Lin Ma

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[tj]

Andrew, and all,

I am tremendously flattered that my name has shown up on a couple of 
short lists, but (like Dennis) I am announcing my retirement from the 
PMC business. PMC membership is basically a "people" job, and I am not a 
"people" person. Worse, some technical skills are required to perform 
certain PMC functions, and I lack those (so far). I will stick around 
until graduation, in case I can help with something. After that, if the 
PMC decides to allow non-members to subscribe to "private", I will.


As a committer, I will continue my work on the Mwiki, and expand my 
skills. Maybe I can learn enough C++ and SVN to take a crack at some of 
the Basic bugs.


/tj/

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Andrew Rist]

(top posting after private messages - I cannot describe the shame I 
feel...  ;-)


I have an option that I believe will handle Andrea's concerns.  I have 
spoken with Ross and he is amenable to receiving Proposed PMC entries 
off list.
If anyone is concerned about sending their list to ooo-dev, you can send 
it to Ross ( rgardler at apache) instead, and at the end of the period 
(next Sunday), he will send an anonymized summary of the votes he has 
received, along with a breakdown of submissions by committers/PPMC vs 
other community members.


We have received lists from 10 people and have 25 nominees with multiple 
votes.  It would be great to get even more feedback.


A.



On 9/18/2012 1:17 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 17/09/2012 Andrew Rist wrote:

* This is not a vote. This is a search for consensus. Please no '-1'
replies. Let's see what this process produces, and then discuss
from there.


It seems that the process is working quite well, and that we are on 
the right way to bootstrap a PMC by consensus.


I surely don't want to block the current process, but I wonder if 
allowing people to "vote" (actually, express preferences) anonymously 
would be better for some volunteers/cultures. Our mentors have often 
stated that we have secure voting solutions available, but maybe this 
is overkill and time-consuming, and it would be enough to allow people 
to send their lists to a mentor (if available), who would repost them 
here.


It is not an issue that I feel personally: it's OK for me to continue 
with public messages on ooo-dev. But it could be that others have 
problems, and in that case I'd encourage them to speak up so that we 
can find a way to ensure that everyone can express their opinions.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Andrea Pescetti]

On 17/09/2012 Andrew Rist wrote:

* This is not a vote. This is a search for consensus. Please no '-1'
replies. Let's see what this process produces, and then discuss
from there.


It seems that the process is working quite well, and that we are on the 
right way to bootstrap a PMC by consensus.


I surely don't want to block the current process, but I wonder if 
allowing people to "vote" (actually, express preferences) anonymously 
would be better for some volunteers/cultures. Our mentors have often 
stated that we have secure voting solutions available, but maybe this is 
overkill and time-consuming, and it would be enough to allow people to 
send their lists to a mentor (if available), who would repost them here.


It is not an issue that I feel personally: it's OK for me to continue 
with public messages on ooo-dev. But it could be that others have 
problems, and in that case I'd encourage them to speak up so that we can 
find a way to ensure that everyone can express their opinions.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Andrew Rist]

I was thinking that it was similar to [VOTE] and [DISCUSS][VOTE] threads 
that often go on simultaneously.

I look at this as more of a poll, though, with no binding output.
A.


On 9/17/2012 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:

I object to the simultaneous discuss with proposed lists at the same time there 
is activity in your original thread. There is a division of attention. This is 
unfortunate which thread gets a substantive response?

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 17, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Andrew Rist  wrote:


This is the discussion thread - reply to the other thread with your list!

I am opening up a thread for Proposed PMC Lists.

* I have included below the last pass of the Active/Inactive/Retired
   list.  This is for reference, as nothing in that list is binding.
* Everyone choose up to ten names to propose for the PMC.  The final
   list produced by this process will be longer.
* When considering your list, consider diversity as well as activity,
   as we want the final list to cover all aspects of the project.
* This is not a vote. This is a search for consensus.  Please no '-1'
   replies.  Let's see what this process produces, and then discuss
   from there.
* All interested members of the community are welcome to provide
   input.  The feedback from committers will be considered more binding.

I will leave the thread open until next Sunday (anything properly date-stamped 
before the end of Sept 23 will be included).
I will summarize next Monday and we can take it from there.


(final note - I have my list forming in the other window, and it is hard to 
pick just ten names! )

Andrew





PMC list from "Forming a PMC Roster (pass 5)"

==Active==

Albino Neto (bino28)
Allen Pulsifer (apulsifer)
Andre Fischer (af)
Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
Andrew Rist (arist)
Antón Méixome (meixome)
Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch)
Armin Le Grand (alg)
Carl B. Marcum (cmarcum)
Claudio Filho (filhocf)
Cyril Beaussier (bidouille)
Damjan Jovanovic (damjan)
Dave Barton (bmcs)
David Fisher (wave) (Apache Membeber)
David McKay (thegurkha)
Donald P. Harbison (dpharbison)
Drew Jensen (atjensen)
Graham Lauder (yo)
Herbert Dürr (hdu)
Ian Lynch (ingotian)
Jian Fang Zhang (zhangjf)
Jian Hong Cheng (chengjh)
Jim Jagielski (jim) (Apache Membeber)
Jin Hua Chen (chenjinh)
Juan C. Sanz (jucasaca)
Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
Kay Schenk (kschenk)
Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
Louis Suarez-Potts (louis)
Maho NAKATA (maho)
Marcus Lange (marcus)
Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
Peter Junge (pj)
Phillip Rhodes (prhodes)
Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
Regina Henschel (regina)
RGB.ES (rgb-es)
Rob Weir (robweir)
Roberto Galoppini (galoppini)
Roberto Salomon (salomon)
Simon Brouwer (simonbr)
Thomas J. Frazier (yj)
Wang Lei (leiw)
Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
Yong Lin Ma (mayongl)
Yuri Dario (ydario)
Zhe Wang (wangzcdl)
Zoltán Reizinger (r4zoli)

==Not Active==

Arthur Buijs (artietee)
Christian Lippka (clippka)
Christoph Jopp (cjopp)
Eike Rathke (erack)
Florent André (florent)
Frank Peters (fpe)
Ingrid von der Mehden (ingrid)
Ivo Hinkelmann (ivo)
Jomar Silva (homembit)
Kai Ahrens (kahrens)
Kai Sommerfeld (kso)
Lawrence Rosen (lrosen) (Apache Member)
Malte Timmermann (malte)
Manfred A. Reiter (fredao)
Martin Hollmichel (mhollmichel)
Mathias Bauer (mbauer)
Stefan Taxhet (st)
Stephan Bergmann (sb)
Steve Lee (stevelee)
Xia Zhao (lilyzhao)
Yegor Kozlov (yegor) (Apache Member)

== Retired==

Wolf Halton (wolfhalton)(per his request)
Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) (per his request)




--

Andrew Rist | Interoperability Architect
OracleCorporate Architecture Group
Redwood Shores, CA | 650.506.9847

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Dave Fisher]

I object to the simultaneous discuss with proposed lists at the same time there 
is activity in your original thread. There is a division of attention. This is 
unfortunate which thread gets a substantive response?

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 17, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Andrew Rist  wrote:

> This is the discussion thread - reply to the other thread with your list!
> 
> I am opening up a thread for Proposed PMC Lists.
> 
> * I have included below the last pass of the Active/Inactive/Retired
>   list.  This is for reference, as nothing in that list is binding.
> * Everyone choose up to ten names to propose for the PMC.  The final
>   list produced by this process will be longer.
> * When considering your list, consider diversity as well as activity,
>   as we want the final list to cover all aspects of the project.
> * This is not a vote. This is a search for consensus.  Please no '-1'
>   replies.  Let's see what this process produces, and then discuss
>   from there.
> * All interested members of the community are welcome to provide
>   input.  The feedback from committers will be considered more binding.
> 
> I will leave the thread open until next Sunday (anything properly 
> date-stamped before the end of Sept 23 will be included).
> I will summarize next Monday and we can take it from there.
> 
> 
> (final note - I have my list forming in the other window, and it is hard to 
> pick just ten names! )
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMC list from "Forming a PMC Roster (pass 5)"
> 
> ==Active==
> 
> Albino Neto (bino28)
> Allen Pulsifer (apulsifer)
> Andre Fischer (af)
> Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
> Andrew Rist (arist)
> Antón Méixome (meixome)
> Ariel Constenla-Haile (arielch)
> Armin Le Grand (alg)
> Carl B. Marcum (cmarcum)
> Claudio Filho (filhocf)
> Cyril Beaussier (bidouille)
> Damjan Jovanovic (damjan)
> Dave Barton (bmcs)
> David Fisher (wave) (Apache Membeber)
> David McKay (thegurkha)
> Donald P. Harbison (dpharbison)
> Drew Jensen (atjensen)
> Graham Lauder (yo)
> Herbert Dürr (hdu)
> Ian Lynch (ingotian)
> Jian Fang Zhang (zhangjf)
> Jian Hong Cheng (chengjh)
> Jim Jagielski (jim) (Apache Membeber)
> Jin Hua Chen (chenjinh)
> Juan C. Sanz (jucasaca)
> Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
> Kay Schenk (kschenk)
> Kazunari Hirano (khirano)
> Louis Suarez-Potts (louis)
> Maho NAKATA (maho)
> Marcus Lange (marcus)
> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
> Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
> Peter Junge (pj)
> Phillip Rhodes (prhodes)
> Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
> Regina Henschel (regina)
> RGB.ES (rgb-es)
> Rob Weir (robweir)
> Roberto Galoppini (galoppini)
> Roberto Salomon (salomon)
> Simon Brouwer (simonbr)
> Thomas J. Frazier (yj)
> Wang Lei (leiw)
> Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
> Yong Lin Ma (mayongl)
> Yuri Dario (ydario)
> Zhe Wang (wangzcdl)
> Zoltán Reizinger (r4zoli)
> 
> ==Not Active==
> 
> Arthur Buijs (artietee)
> Christian Lippka (clippka)
> Christoph Jopp (cjopp)
> Eike Rathke (erack)
> Florent André (florent)
> Frank Peters (fpe)
> Ingrid von der Mehden (ingrid)
> Ivo Hinkelmann (ivo)
> Jomar Silva (homembit)
> Kai Ahrens (kahrens)
> Kai Sommerfeld (kso)
> Lawrence Rosen (lrosen) (Apache Member)
> Malte Timmermann (malte)
> Manfred A. Reiter (fredao)
> Martin Hollmichel (mhollmichel)
> Mathias Bauer (mbauer)
> Stefan Taxhet (st)
> Stephan Bergmann (sb)
> Steve Lee (stevelee)
> Xia Zhao (lilyzhao)
> Yegor Kozlov (yegor) (Apache Member)
> 
> == Retired==
> 
> Wolf Halton (wolfhalton)(per his request)
> Dennis E. Hamilton (orcmid) (per his request)
> 
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Rob Weir]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
> Hi Dave;
>
> What details do you need? :)
>
> I see it as a interesting approach:
> - Take 10 people that you think should be in the PMC.
> - Don't include yourself.
> - Add everyone that hits the radar after a week.
>
>
> we have a new PMC by direct consensus ;).
>

And we should all remember that the end of this selection process is
not the end of the evolution of the PMC.  It is only the start.  The
PMC selected in this way would have the full ability to make additions
going forward, per the normal PMC process.  So this is not a list
carved in stone, for all time.  It is just the starting point.

So, IMHO, the question is:  will a PMC list selected by this means:

1) Have only those members who have a high degree of consensus
approval and community trust?

and

2) Can this list be trusted to further evolve the PMC in the future in
a way the continues to maintain the trust of the community?


In other words, the initial list does not need to be perfect.  But it
does need to be trusted.

-Rob

>
>
>
>>
>> From: Dave Fisher 
>>To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" 
>>Cc: ooo-dev 
>>Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:07 PM
>>Subject: Re: [PMC] Proposed PMC List
>>
>>Premature and lacking details.
>>
>>Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>On Sep 17, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Andrew Rist  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Andre Fischer (af)
>>> Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
>>> Drew Jensen (atjensen)
>>> Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
>>> Kay Schenk (kschenk)
>>> Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
>>> Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
>>> Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
>>> RGB.ES (rgb-es)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hi Dave;

What details do you need? :)

I see it as a interesting approach:
- Take 10 people that you think should be in the PMC.
- Don't include yourself.
- Add everyone that hits the radar after a week.


we have a new PMC by direct consensus ;).




>
> From: Dave Fisher 
>To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org"  
>Cc: ooo-dev  
>Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:07 PM
>Subject: Re: [PMC] Proposed PMC List
> 
>Premature and lacking details.
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Sep 17, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Andrew Rist  wrote:
>
>> 
>> Andre Fischer (af)
>> Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
>> Drew Jensen (atjensen)
>> Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
>> Kay Schenk (kschenk)
>> Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
>> Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
>> Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
>> RGB.ES (rgb-es)
>> 
>> 
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Alexandro Colorado]

On 9/17/12, Andrew Rist  wrote:
> One thing I think it is important to point out is that this is not a
> proposal for the 'Final PMC' as in the ONLY ten I think belong on the PMC.
> This approach is to have everyone give up their nomination list 10
> worthy community members.  Assuming all the lists are not identical -
> the final list should be a more full representation of the project.

I understand the point of having a pool of 10 members and decide from
it, however is the discussion of seats a requirement for the
graduation, and if such, will there be taken from the amount of
mentions?

Since the graduation is projected for ApacheCon these points become
also relevant to address.

>
> Someone had to go first - I offered my neck...
>
> A.
>
> On 9/17/2012 11:19 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Being a committer on the project means you
>> have the right to do work on it, whereas being
>> a PMC member means you have the right to control
>> its direction.  Some people like to say committers
>> not on the PMC are working on someone else's project,
>> but I wouldn't go that far.
>>
>>
>> Anyway I only mention this because your proposal looks
>> a little on the short side, which could cause problems
>> if you care about ensuring project governance is
>> representative ofall the people who are dedicated and
>> willing to workon it.  Hell you didn't even include
>> yourself in the list ;-).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 
>>> From: Andrew Rist 
>>> To: ooo-dev 
>>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:13 PM
>>> Subject: [PMC] Proposed PMC List
>>>
>>>
>>> Andre Fischer (af)
>>> Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
>>> Drew Jensen (atjensen)
>>> Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
>>> Kay Schenk (kschenk)
>>> Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
>>> Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
>>> Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
>>> RGB.ES (rgb-es)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>


-- 
Alexandro Colorado
PPMC Apache OpenOffice
http://es.openoffice.org

Re: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hi Andrew;

Thank you for starting this issue again.

I tend to agree that the list is too short but I do understand that the idea
behind the process is precisely that other people make their own lists
and we can start building a list of people that we all trust 100%.

This is certainly a more friendly approach to that of kicking out
people not everyone trusts for some reason or another.

Perhaps a not too orthogonal discussion is.. do we want to graduate
before ApacheCon?

Pedro.



>
> From: Andrew Rist 
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org 
>Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:30 PM
>Subject: [DISCUSS] [PMC] Proposed PMC List
> 
>One thing I think it is important to point out is that this is not a 
>proposal for the 'Final PMC' as in the ONLY ten I think belong on the PMC.
>This approach is to have everyone give up their nomination list 10 
>worthy community members.  Assuming all the lists are not identical - 
>the final list should be a more full representation of the project.
>
>Someone had to go first - I offered my neck...
>
>A.
>
>On 9/17/2012 11:19 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Being a committer on the project means you
>> have the right to do work on it, whereas being
>> a PMC member means you have the right to control
>> its direction.  Some people like to say committers
>> not on the PMC are working on someone else's project,
>> but I wouldn't go that far.
>>
>>
>> Anyway I only mention this because your proposal looks
>> a little on the short side, which could cause problems
>> if you care about ensuring project governance is
>> representative ofall the people who are dedicated and
>> willing to workon it.  Hell you didn't even include
>> yourself in the list ;-).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 
>>> From: Andrew Rist 
>>> To: ooo-dev 
>>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:13 PM
>>> Subject: [PMC] Proposed PMC List
>>>
>>>
>>> Andre Fischer (af)
>>> Andrea Pescetti (pescetti)
>>> Drew Jensen (atjensen)
>>> Jürgen Schmidt (jsc)
>>> Kay Schenk (kschenk)
>>> Raphael Bircher (rbircher)
>>> Pedro Giffuni (pfg)
>>> Yang Shih-Ching (imacat)
>>> Oliver-Rainer Wittmann (orw)
>>> RGB.ES (rgb-es)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>