Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 18 July 2011 16:22, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > > Just to be clear: The time in proposal was 10 days, from June 1 to June > 10. "Weeks" is a stretch. > > Really? Wow it felt much longer ;-) Thanks for the correction. > > > We should acknowledge that objection even though the PPMC is expected to > be unswerving in its adherence to policies. > > Agreed. It's not that I think the objections are groundless, but a > line needs to be drawn somewhere. > > > So, are we to make it clear that this is how the Apache Podling bootstrap > game is played and there is no point in arguing with the umpire about what > the rules of play are? > > The "umpire" here is the PPMC right? As a mentor I am not trying to > tell you where to draw the line, I am merely saying that it looks to > me like the majority of the PPMC feel the line was drawn when the vote > was called, if I am mistaken then please don't read my mails as ASF > policy, the PPMC gets to set where the line is drawn. > > As a mentor I hope that the PPMC is also agreed that the barrier to > entry for new committers (from OOo days or not) is relatively low and > that the project community works hard to reach out to those who are > upset that they missed the call. Help them become involved here at > Apache, make them welcome, apply their documentation and code patches > quickly, recognise their work to get the Apache OOo message out there. > In general make sure everyone is welcome whether they have the > "committer" title or not. > +1 i would highly appreciate that we welcome everybody and make the entry barrier as low as possible aligned with the Apache rules. Everything else comes over time if new people start real work on the project and show us their commitment and contributions. Juergen > > Ross > > > > > - Dennis > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@opendirective.com] > > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 03:37 > > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains > > > > On 17 July 2011 20:26, Kay Schenk wrote: > >> On 07/13/2011 06:37 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > > > > ... > > > >>> Contributions elsewhere do not count. It is contributions here that > >>> matter. There was plenty of time during proposal time for past > >>> contributors to step up. They did not. Now this is an ASF project > >>> everyone needs to earn merit in the ASF project not in what went > >>> before. > >> > >> One comment on this. I believe MANY past OpenOffice.org > >> contributors/committers were not even aware of the "proposal time". So, > this > >> remark is a bit troubling to me. Really, it is only since well about > June > >> 20th that more details of the move to Apache had emerged. > > > > It's reasonable to assume that anyone active in the OOo project should > > have been monitoring OOo lists and discussions. It's not like there > > wasn't a whole media storm about the proposal. If someone did not turn > > up during the proposal phase, read the proposal and see the invite to > > add themselves then it is reasonable to assume that they may no longer > > be significantly active. The process took weeks. > > > > [ ... ] > > > > > > > > -- > Ross Gardler (@rgardler) > Programme Leader (Open Development) > OpenDirective http://opendirective.com >
RE: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
the Initial Committers and > there are more, such as yourself, who have become active on ooo-dev since. > > That's what happened that was visible to me. (I saw the announcement on June > 1 and registered on the wiki and the incubator list the same day. My iCLA > was sent in two days later and one week later I received confirmation that it > was registered. It is clearly an accident of timing that it came to my > attention immediately. That I acted on it was my own sense and excitement > over the opportunity.) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] > <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201107.mbox/%3c4e23377b.1040...@gmail.com%3e> > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 12:27 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains > > > > On 07/13/2011 06:37 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201107.mbox/%3ccakqbxgb83dos1nqtxh79l2qch3nw0vpxoahn1d9oghcn2vw...@mail.gmail.com%3e> > > Responding as a mentor - not as an OO.o committer... > [ ... ] > >> �2. A person is considered eligible to become a committer when there is an > >> established pattern of contribution on the > >> project:<http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html>. > >> > >> �2.1 To what degree should contributions elsewhere -- a prior reputation > >> -- be taken into consideration? > >> �2.2 For how long should we do this, if at all? > > > > Contributions elsewhere do not count. It is contributions here that > > matter. There was plenty of time during proposal time for past > > contributors to step up. They did not. Now this is an ASF project > > everyone needs to earn merit in the ASF project not in what went > > before. > > One comment on this. I believe MANY past OpenOffice.org > contributors/committers were not even aware of the "proposal time". So, > this remark is a bit troubling to me. Really, it is only since well > about June 20th that more details of the move to Apache had emerged. > > I don't know how this information was supposedly made known, but, > well...a LOT of folks were NOT informed. > > [ ... ] > -- Graham Lauder, OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html OpenOffice.org Migration and training Consultant.
Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
Am 07/18/2011 08:12 PM, schrieb Mathias Bauer: On 18.07.2011 12:53, Marcus (OOo) wrote: That the new contributors have to play the game now with the Apache rules is OK. But they need to know *that* it's going on. I've heard a few times that it was still thought that OOo is dead. They haven't heard about the transition to Apache. I wonder how big the stone under that someone lives must be so that (s)he never heard or read about the transition to Apache. At least on the most important mailing lists it has been posted that OOo will find its new home here. That's more important than having a posting on "announce@ooo" that is mostly consumed by project outsiders. I don't know how big the bang in the news really was but it was just a suggestion to reach more people. If we think it's not needed, it's OK. I'm fine with that. :-) Marcus
Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
On 18.07.2011 12:53, Marcus (OOo) wrote: > That the new contributors have to play the game now with the Apache > rules is OK. But they need to know *that* it's going on. I've heard a > few times that it was still thought that OOo is dead. They haven't heard > about the transition to Apache. I wonder how big the stone under that someone lives must be so that (s)he never heard or read about the transition to Apache. At least on the most important mailing lists it has been posted that OOo will find its new home here. That's more important than having a posting on "announce@ooo" that is mostly consumed by project outsiders. Regards, Mathias
Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Good point, Rob. I am not floating a proposal, more an opportunity for > discussion. Here are some questions: > > 1. When should we conclude that the Initial Committers that have arrived are > all that are coming and we should close the door, with all further committers > being by invitation of the PPMC? > Friday, September 16th, Midnight UTC. Let's give a reasonable period of time, especially respecting summer vacations. > 2. A person is considered eligible to become a committer when there is an > established pattern of contribution on the project: > <http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html>. > > 2.1 To what degree should contributions elsewhere -- a prior reputation -- > be taken into consideration? > 2.2 For how long should we do this, if at all? > I think that many former contributors to OOo have a clear advantage over all most other potential contributors to Apache OpenOffice, and this advantage will result in their becoming Committers very fast. This advantage is their existing familiarity with the product, how it is put together and how it works and what users want. This is true for coders, testers, translators, documentation authors, etc. This awareness will allow them to "hit the ground running" and demonstrate merit far faster than someone who is approaching this code base for the very first time. Remember, that becoming a Committer is about commitment to this project, this *Apache* project, and that this commitment is demonstrated not only by a contributors patches to the project, or contributions to the mailing lists or support forums. It is also demonstrated by understanding and applying the Apache Way. This later qualification is not something one would have gained knowledge of from work on legacy OpenOffice. You might gain it from work on other Apache projects. Or you can gain it by working on this project for a while. So to answer your question: I don't think we ever stop taking into consideration work done at legacy OOo, but I think we should always be looking for evidence that this legacy knowledge is leading to valued contributions in the Apache project, and that the contributor is showing that they understand the Apache Way. > 3. What do you expect to see as demonstration that the PPMC is being > even-handed in the invitation of new committers? > I'd like to see evidence that a new person can join the project, who was not involved in OOo, and that they can gain sufficient familiarity with it that they can work on an area of interest, make contributions, have their patches merged in, and based on their demonstrated merit, be voted in as committers. Note that this is more than the voting side of things. In some sense, voting is the easiest part of this. The much harder part is how a new project members, without previous knowledge of OOo or Apache, can get up to speed. In that sense, we need to learn how to be ourselves "mentors" of new contributors. We're starting on that already. The FAQ's on editing the web site, for example, have enabled more people to contribute in that area. We'll want to pay attention to this "new contributor" factor in all of our work. What do we need to do to get new volunteers productive? > 4. Is it understood why the ooo-secur...@incubator.apache.org list is being > created and the safeguards that are intended with regard to the security > under which matters of security are raised? > I think the idea is, that even with the best intentions, a large private list will have inadvertent leaks. So where the subject matter is especially sensitive we limit access even further, to a few experts. In addition to this list, I suggest we maintain a txt file in the PPMC's private repository, to contain the contact information for additional, non PPMC experts who we agree should be consulted in relevant security discussions. > 5. Most important: This is a learning experience for all of us. What do you > want cleared up around these growing-pain considerations? > The above is a good start. > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:rabas...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 14:34 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains > > Is this intended as a blog post? It reads like one. In particular I > don't see any proposals to discuss. > > -Rob > > On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:30 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: > >> We are just one month into being the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling. It is >> useful to interesting to take stock of all that is happening and where we >> are. >> >> The main activity that we are all holding our breath over is the >> rec
Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > > It happens that the Initial Committers are a self-selected group whose only > qualification is (1) editing an entry on a wiki page and (2) doing what it > takes to show up. It's an arbitrary solution to the bootstrapping of a > podling. > > The other arbitrary part is that, immediately and thereafter, all further > committer invitations be based on visible contribution at the podling. > > If those are the rules, they are the rules, as in any game. There are folks > who find them unreasonable. The only hard rules are that committers must be voted in and must provide an ICLA. When faced with an initial proposal which contained exactly two names: one from Oracle and one from IBM, and I could have picked any number of ways to address this. I opted to take a calculated risk and said that I would endorse anybody who was paying attention and had the gumption to edit the wiki. There were people who (rightfully) criticized that approach from the beginning, and undoubtedly there still are people who feel that I should have set the bar higher from the beginning. What's done is done, and the proposal -- complete with a large list of initial committers -- did get ample number of votes to establish this podling. I do believe that the upsides I am continuing to see outweigh the downsides; but I would be remiss in not identifying one clear downside: one unenviable task that this PPMC will ultimately have to accomplish is to decide what it means to actually have shown up (hint: non-coders can participate too), and eliminate from the PPMC those that did not. Note: there is no hidden metrics involved. You (collectively) don't need to shed 20% or get above or below any set numbers. Simply decide what it means to actively participate and apply that criteria consistently. > We should acknowledge that objection even though the PPMC is expected to be > unswerving in its adherence to policies. You are welcome, and even encouraged, to push back on policies that don't make sense. There are some rules that will be difficult to change (examples: requirements for an ICLA or to have a vote to bring in new committers) and rules that you get to set (how you evaluate contributions). A number of mentors have provided input on the latter, but if you will note, each and every one of them have stopped short of saying that it is a hard and immutable rule that needs to be applied immediately. > So, are we to make it clear that this is how the Apache Podling bootstrap > game is played and there is no point in arguing with the umpire about what > the rules of play are? In my experience, the hardest concept for newcomers to the ASF to grasp is that once they are voted in, *THEY* are the umpires. Sure, there is a baseball commission that step in in exceptional conditions, and initially mentors are visibly present, but the sooner the participants in this project can demonstrate they they are able to work out these things on their own, the sooner this project can graduate. > - Dennis - Sam Ruby
Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
On 18 July 2011 16:22, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Just to be clear: The time in proposal was 10 days, from June 1 to June 10. > "Weeks" is a stretch. Really? Wow it felt much longer ;-) Thanks for the correction. > We should acknowledge that objection even though the PPMC is expected to be > unswerving in its adherence to policies. Agreed. It's not that I think the objections are groundless, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere. > So, are we to make it clear that this is how the Apache Podling bootstrap > game is played and there is no point in arguing with the umpire about what > the rules of play are? The "umpire" here is the PPMC right? As a mentor I am not trying to tell you where to draw the line, I am merely saying that it looks to me like the majority of the PPMC feel the line was drawn when the vote was called, if I am mistaken then please don't read my mails as ASF policy, the PPMC gets to set where the line is drawn. As a mentor I hope that the PPMC is also agreed that the barrier to entry for new committers (from OOo days or not) is relatively low and that the project community works hard to reach out to those who are upset that they missed the call. Help them become involved here at Apache, make them welcome, apply their documentation and code patches quickly, recognise their work to get the Apache OOo message out there. In general make sure everyone is welcome whether they have the "committer" title or not. Ross > > - Dennis > > -Original Message- > From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@opendirective.com] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 03:37 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains > > On 17 July 2011 20:26, Kay Schenk wrote: >> On 07/13/2011 06:37 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > > ... > >>> Contributions elsewhere do not count. It is contributions here that >>> matter. There was plenty of time during proposal time for past >>> contributors to step up. They did not. Now this is an ASF project >>> everyone needs to earn merit in the ASF project not in what went >>> before. >> >> One comment on this. I believe MANY past OpenOffice.org >> contributors/committers were not even aware of the "proposal time". So, this >> remark is a bit troubling to me. Really, it is only since well about June >> 20th that more details of the move to Apache had emerged. > > It's reasonable to assume that anyone active in the OOo project should > have been monitoring OOo lists and discussions. It's not like there > wasn't a whole media storm about the proposal. If someone did not turn > up during the proposal phase, read the proposal and see the invite to > add themselves then it is reasonable to assume that they may no longer > be significantly active. The process took weeks. > > [ ... ] > > -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
RE: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
Just to be clear: The time in proposal was 10 days, from June 1 to June 10. "Weeks" is a stretch. I don't think this matters. I don't think the duration before the proposal was voted on was determined by any notion of some community having time to notice and the participants time to arrive and participate. The threshold was simpler than that, as far as I can tell, and perhaps more driven by some urgency to have acceptance of the incubator project be resolved. I know that was on my mind. It happens that the Initial Committers are a self-selected group whose only qualification is (1) editing an entry on a wiki page and (2) doing what it takes to show up. It's an arbitrary solution to the bootstrapping of a podling. The other arbitrary part is that, immediately and thereafter, all further committer invitations be based on visible contribution at the podling. If those are the rules, they are the rules, as in any game. There are folks who find them unreasonable. We should acknowledge that objection even though the PPMC is expected to be unswerving in its adherence to policies. So, are we to make it clear that this is how the Apache Podling bootstrap game is played and there is no point in arguing with the umpire about what the rules of play are? - Dennis -Original Message- From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@opendirective.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 03:37 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains On 17 July 2011 20:26, Kay Schenk wrote: > On 07/13/2011 06:37 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: ... >> Contributions elsewhere do not count. It is contributions here that >> matter. There was plenty of time during proposal time for past >> contributors to step up. They did not. Now this is an ASF project >> everyone needs to earn merit in the ASF project not in what went >> before. > > One comment on this. I believe MANY past OpenOffice.org > contributors/committers were not even aware of the "proposal time". So, this > remark is a bit troubling to me. Really, it is only since well about June > 20th that more details of the move to Apache had emerged. It's reasonable to assume that anyone active in the OOo project should have been monitoring OOo lists and discussions. It's not like there wasn't a whole media storm about the proposal. If someone did not turn up during the proposal phase, read the proposal and see the invite to add themselves then it is reasonable to assume that they may no longer be significantly active. The process took weeks. [ ... ]
Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 18 July 2011 11:53, Marcus (OOo) wrote: > > ... > >> That the new contributors have to play the game now with the Apache rules is >> OK. But they need to know *that* it's going on. I've heard a few times that >> it was still thought that OOo is dead. They haven't heard about the >> transition to Apache. > > Absolutely. This thread will be reaching those who have got here, but... > >> For these people we should try to make an announcement (OK, kind of). When >> they like it then they will come to us and decide if they want to >> contribute. > > Absolutely! > > I would hope that everyone here is doing their bit to get that message > out. There can never be too much of that. I just want to (re)-emphasize the point that this isn't something the PPMC should be expecting someone *else* (mentors, board, whomever) to be doing for this project, this is something that the members of the project should be actively doing. > Ross - Sam Ruby
Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
On 18 July 2011 11:53, Marcus (OOo) wrote: ... > That the new contributors have to play the game now with the Apache rules is > OK. But they need to know *that* it's going on. I've heard a few times that > it was still thought that OOo is dead. They haven't heard about the > transition to Apache. Absolutely. This thread will be reaching those who have got here, but... > For these people we should try to make an announcement (OK, kind of). When > they like it then they will come to us and decide if they want to > contribute. Absolutely! I would hope that everyone here is doing their bit to get that message out. There can never be too much of that. Ross
Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
Am 07/18/2011 12:36 PM, schrieb Ross Gardler: On 17 July 2011 20:26, Kay Schenk wrote: On 07/13/2011 06:37 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: ... Contributions elsewhere do not count. It is contributions here that matter. There was plenty of time during proposal time for past contributors to step up. They did not. Now this is an ASF project everyone needs to earn merit in the ASF project not in what went before. One comment on this. I believe MANY past OpenOffice.org contributors/committers were not even aware of the "proposal time". So, this remark is a bit troubling to me. Really, it is only since well about June 20th that more details of the move to Apache had emerged. It's reasonable to assume that anyone active in the OOo project should have been monitoring OOo lists and discussions. It's not like there wasn't a whole media storm about the proposal. If someone did not turn up during the proposal phase, read the proposal and see the invite to add themselves then it is reasonable to assume that they may no longer be significantly active. The process took weeks. There needs to be a cut-off period and that period is when the project became an Apache incubator project. Once OOo became and incubator project it started to operate like an Apache project. Those projects give committership to people who have earned merit, not to people who ask for it. It's not hard to earn merit in an Apache project, just do some stuff for the *Apache* project. This might seem unreasonable when some of the people being discussed here have been around for a very long time and done some fantastic work to get to this point, but there needs to be a point at which the project adopts the Apache Way. That time was when it entered the incubator. That the new contributors have to play the game now with the Apache rules is OK. But they need to know *that* it's going on. I've heard a few times that it was still thought that OOo is dead. They haven't heard about the transition to Apache. For these people we should try to make an announcement (OK, kind of). When they like it then they will come to us and decide if they want to contribute. Marcus I don't know how this information was supposedly made known, but, well...a LOT of folks were NOT informed. �3. What do you expect to see as demonstration that the PPMC is being even-handed in the invitation of new committers? Consistency in the application of committer selection guidelines. That, of course, begs the question "what are our selection guidelines". Personally I don't see any need to define these in advance. Anyone on the PPMC can propose anyone for committership. A discussion will take place and, in most cases a vote will be called. If I, as a mentor, see someone being inconsistent in their support or obstruction of any individual I will ask them to justify their position. If their position is consistent across each case then their opinion is entirely valid. Trying to define "rules" for these things does not make any sense, the types of contribution are just too variable. It is best to just let these things evolve and deal with them on a case by case basis, openly and transparently. �4. Is it understood why the ooo-secur...@incubator.apache.org list is being created and the safeguards that are intended with regard to the security under which matters of security are raised? As a mentor I have some concerns about this. The private@ list is for private project communications. We've already seen far too much happening on the private@ list (although I am pleased to report to the ooo-dev list that this practice seems to have stopped now - well done PPMC members). That being said, I can see the logic in the argument. as long as this list is used *only* for security issues it should be fine. �5. Most important: This is a learning experience for all of us. �What do you want cleared up around these growing-pain considerations? I'll echo Shane's comments here. There is no need to rush things. Let them evolve naturally. Trying to anticipate issues before they arrive is likely to result in too much "red tape" around the project. That being said, again echoing Shane, I think mails like this that are purposefully designed to increase engagement and transparency will ensure that most issues are addressed in an appropriate and timely fashion. Keep up the great work. Ross �- Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:rabas...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 14:34 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains Is this intended as a blog post? �It reads like one. In particular I don't see any proposals to discuss. -Rob On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:30 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: We are just one month into being the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling. �It is useful to interesting to take
Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
On 17 July 2011 20:26, Kay Schenk wrote: > On 07/13/2011 06:37 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: ... >> Contributions elsewhere do not count. It is contributions here that >> matter. There was plenty of time during proposal time for past >> contributors to step up. They did not. Now this is an ASF project >> everyone needs to earn merit in the ASF project not in what went >> before. > > One comment on this. I believe MANY past OpenOffice.org > contributors/committers were not even aware of the "proposal time". So, this > remark is a bit troubling to me. Really, it is only since well about June > 20th that more details of the move to Apache had emerged. It's reasonable to assume that anyone active in the OOo project should have been monitoring OOo lists and discussions. It's not like there wasn't a whole media storm about the proposal. If someone did not turn up during the proposal phase, read the proposal and see the invite to add themselves then it is reasonable to assume that they may no longer be significantly active. The process took weeks. There needs to be a cut-off period and that period is when the project became an Apache incubator project. Once OOo became and incubator project it started to operate like an Apache project. Those projects give committership to people who have earned merit, not to people who ask for it. It's not hard to earn merit in an Apache project, just do some stuff for the *Apache* project. This might seem unreasonable when some of the people being discussed here have been around for a very long time and done some fantastic work to get to this point, but there needs to be a point at which the project adopts the Apache Way. That time was when it entered the incubator. Ross > > I don't know how this information was supposedly made known, but, well...a > LOT of folks were NOT informed. > >> >>> �3. What do you expect to see as demonstration that the PPMC is being >>> even-handed in the invitation of new committers? >> >> Consistency in the application of committer selection guidelines. >> That, of course, begs the question "what are our selection >> guidelines". Personally I don't see any need to define these in >> advance. >> >> Anyone on the PPMC can propose anyone for committership. A discussion >> will take place and, in most cases a vote will be called. If I, as a >> mentor, see someone being inconsistent in their support or obstruction >> of any individual I will ask them to justify their position. If their >> position is consistent across each case then their opinion is entirely >> valid. >> >> Trying to define "rules" for these things does not make any sense, the >> types of contribution are just too variable. It is best to just let >> these things evolve and deal with them on a case by case basis, openly >> and transparently. >> >>> �4. Is it understood why the ooo-secur...@incubator.apache.org list is >>> being created and the safeguards that are intended with regard to the >>> security under which matters of security are raised? >> >> As a mentor I have some concerns about this. The private@ list is for >> private project communications. We've already seen far too much >> happening on the private@ list (although I am pleased to report to the >> ooo-dev list that this practice seems to have stopped now - well done >> PPMC members). >> >> That being said, I can see the logic in the argument. as long as this >> list is used *only* for security issues it should be fine. >> >>> �5. Most important: This is a learning experience for all of us. �What do >>> you want cleared up around these growing-pain considerations? >> >> I'll echo Shane's comments here. There is no need to rush things. Let >> them evolve naturally. Trying to anticipate issues before they arrive >> is likely to result in too much "red tape" around the project. >> >> That being said, again echoing Shane, I think mails like this that are >> purposefully designed to increase engagement and transparency will >> ensure that most issues are addressed in an appropriate and timely >> fashion. Keep up the great work. >> >> Ross >> >> >>> >>> �- Dennis >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:rabas...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 14:34 >>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains >>> >>> Is this intended as a blog post? �It reads like one. In particular I >>> don't see any p
RE: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
Yes, and we have a way to report and track bugs and other issues here [;<). - Dennis -Original Message- From: sa3r...@gmail.com [mailto:sa3r...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 14:58 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > Uh well...this was nice but I'm wondering why the same wasn't done on the > openoffice lists, like maybe "announcements" ? We are where we are. Looking forward: Kay, who are you expecting to do this? At this point, this should be done by the members of the project. Kay, if this is something that you feel needs to be done, simply do so and keep this list informed of your progress. As to what message should be sent, I would encourage that message to be one that shows people how to participate by sending in patches. This may be easier once there is actual code in the repository. - Sam Ruby
Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > > Uh well...this was nice but I'm wondering why the same wasn't done on the > > openoffice lists, like maybe "announcements" ? > > We are where we are. > > Looking forward: Kay, who are you expecting to do this? At this > point, this should be done by the members of the project. > OK, "announcement" postings are NOT public post, but it looks like Marcus could do this. I'll contact him. > > Kay, if this is something that you feel needs to be done, simply do so > and keep this list informed of your progress. As to what message > should be sent, I would encourage that message to be one that shows > people how to participate by sending in patches. This may be easier > once there is actual code in the repository. > OK... > > - Sam Ruby > -- --- MzK "An old horse for a long hard road, a young pony for a quick ride." -- Unknown
Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > Uh well...this was nice but I'm wondering why the same wasn't done on the > openoffice lists, like maybe "announcements" ? We are where we are. Looking forward: Kay, who are you expecting to do this? At this point, this should be done by the members of the project. Kay, if this is something that you feel needs to be done, simply do so and keep this list informed of your progress. As to what message should be sent, I would encourage that message to be one that shows people how to participate by sending in patches. This may be easier once there is actual code in the repository. - Sam Ruby
Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
ss. -Original Message- From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201107.mbox/%3c4e23377b.1040...@gmail.com%3e> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 12:27 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains On 07/13/2011 06:37 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201107.mbox/%3ccakqbxgb83dos1nqtxh79l2qch3nw0vpxoahn1d9oghcn2vw...@mail.gmail.com%3e> Responding as a mentor - not as an OO.o committer... [ ... ] �2. A person is considered eligible to become a committer when there is an established pattern of contribution on the project:<http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html>. �2.1 To what degree should contributions elsewhere -- a prior reputation -- be taken into consideration? �2.2 For how long should we do this, if at all? Contributions elsewhere do not count. It is contributions here that matter. There was plenty of time during proposal time for past contributors to step up. They did not. Now this is an ASF project everyone needs to earn merit in the ASF project not in what went before. One comment on this. I believe MANY past OpenOffice.org contributors/committers were not even aware of the "proposal time". So, this remark is a bit troubling to me. Really, it is only since well about June 20th that more details of the move to Apache had emerged. I don't know how this information was supposedly made known, but, well...a LOT of folks were NOT informed. [ ... ] -- MzK "An old horse for a long hard road, a young pony for a quick ride". -- Unknown
RE: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
Hi Kay, I think there is a conflict of expectations and it is something that we need to address. The PPMC is not only former/current OpenOffice.org contributors and we don't all know each other. And some of us are acquainted in contexts that have nothing to do with OpenOffice.org. (I'm at a forgetful age, but I don't think you or I have had any direct experience of each other's contributions outside of ooo-dev, for example.) In some sense, the most effective way to be seen and known at the PPMC is to contribute in all of the (hopefully-increasing) ways there are to contribute on ooo-dev. Whether we should be fast-tracking notable contributors to OpenOffice.org in some manner or whether we should have the Apache meritocracy take over in a strict way is something that the PPMC has to deal with. You've hear one mentor assert the second case. The composition of the PPMC is an accident of birth (and timing). The presumption is that we will do the right thing in growing this project into a thriving activity that merits advancement to an Apache Top Level Project (TLP). That is what the PPMC job is, no matter what we might have individually expected on arrival. Community involvement is also a success factor. How can we navigate the invitation of further committers in a responsible way? What are your and other's further thoughts? - Dennis LOOKING BACK TO HOW WE GOT HERE It is true that it is a short time from June 1 (announcement of the incubator proposal and discussions on gene...@incubator.apache.com) to June 10 (commencement of the ballot to accept the proposed incubator project). I'm not sure it was a short time for a typical incubator proposal. The gating factors seem to be that (1) there was considered to be a sufficient list of Initial Committers and mentors for starting a podling of the size and ambitions anticipated for OpenOffice.org, (2) the proposal had been refined enough, and (3) the discussion on various issues raised by commenters had died down enough to consider it being time to vote. The Incubator PMC were the binding voters in this case. The idea of needing to make outreach to some broad community or provide time to engage that community wasn't a prominent consideration, as I recall. Because of the OpenOffice.org - LibreOffice schism, a number of experienced Apache folks went to TDF lists to inform participants there and to discuss how Apache operates and what can reasonably be expected. I have no knowledge of the communications that happened on lists and forums frequented by OpenOffice.org contributors. A substantial proportion of OpenOffice.org participants appear to be among the Initial Committers and there are more, such as yourself, who have become active on ooo-dev since. That's what happened that was visible to me. (I saw the announcement on June 1 and registered on the wiki and the incubator list the same day. My iCLA was sent in two days later and one week later I received confirmation that it was registered. It is clearly an accident of timing that it came to my attention immediately. That I acted on it was my own sense and excitement over the opportunity.) -Original Message- From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201107.mbox/%3c4e23377b.1040...@gmail.com%3e> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 12:27 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains On 07/13/2011 06:37 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201107.mbox/%3ccakqbxgb83dos1nqtxh79l2qch3nw0vpxoahn1d9oghcn2vw...@mail.gmail.com%3e> > Responding as a mentor - not as an OO.o committer... [ ... ] >> �2. A person is considered eligible to become a committer when there is an >> established pattern of contribution on the >> project:<http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html>. >> >> �2.1 To what degree should contributions elsewhere -- a prior reputation -- >> be taken into consideration? >> �2.2 For how long should we do this, if at all? > > Contributions elsewhere do not count. It is contributions here that > matter. There was plenty of time during proposal time for past > contributors to step up. They did not. Now this is an ASF project > everyone needs to earn merit in the ASF project not in what went > before. One comment on this. I believe MANY past OpenOffice.org contributors/committers were not even aware of the "proposal time". So, this remark is a bit troubling to me. Really, it is only since well about June 20th that more details of the move to Apache had emerged. I don't know how this information was supposedly made known, but, well...a LOT of folks were NOT informed. [ ... ]
Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
On 07/13/2011 06:37 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: Responding as a mentor - not as an OO.o committer... On 12 July 2011 23:39, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Good point, Rob. �I am not floating a proposal, more an opportunity for discussion. �Here are some questions: �1. When should we conclude that the Initial Committers that have arrived are all that are coming and we should close the door, with all further committers being by invitation of the PPMC? I'd suggest sending a notification to all who self-identified that they have 10 days to either submit an ICLA or indicate that they are taking advice before signing. The PPMC has been active in chasing people. It's legitimate to close the door on those who do not respond to such a request. For those who are "taking advice" I would give an additional 30 days. �2. A person is considered eligible to become a committer when there is an established pattern of contribution on the project:<http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html>. �2.1 To what degree should contributions elsewhere -- a prior reputation -- be taken into consideration? �2.2 For how long should we do this, if at all? Contributions elsewhere do not count. It is contributions here that matter. There was plenty of time during proposal time for past contributors to step up. They did not. Now this is an ASF project everyone needs to earn merit in the ASF project not in what went before. One comment on this. I believe MANY past OpenOffice.org contributors/committers were not even aware of the "proposal time". So, this remark is a bit troubling to me. Really, it is only since well about June 20th that more details of the move to Apache had emerged. I don't know how this information was supposedly made known, but, well...a LOT of folks were NOT informed. �3. What do you expect to see as demonstration that the PPMC is being even-handed in the invitation of new committers? Consistency in the application of committer selection guidelines. That, of course, begs the question "what are our selection guidelines". Personally I don't see any need to define these in advance. Anyone on the PPMC can propose anyone for committership. A discussion will take place and, in most cases a vote will be called. If I, as a mentor, see someone being inconsistent in their support or obstruction of any individual I will ask them to justify their position. If their position is consistent across each case then their opinion is entirely valid. Trying to define "rules" for these things does not make any sense, the types of contribution are just too variable. It is best to just let these things evolve and deal with them on a case by case basis, openly and transparently. �4. Is it understood why the ooo-secur...@incubator.apache.org list is being created and the safeguards that are intended with regard to the security under which matters of security are raised? As a mentor I have some concerns about this. The private@ list is for private project communications. We've already seen far too much happening on the private@ list (although I am pleased to report to the ooo-dev list that this practice seems to have stopped now - well done PPMC members). That being said, I can see the logic in the argument. as long as this list is used *only* for security issues it should be fine. �5. Most important: This is a learning experience for all of us. �What do you want cleared up around these growing-pain considerations? I'll echo Shane's comments here. There is no need to rush things. Let them evolve naturally. Trying to anticipate issues before they arrive is likely to result in too much "red tape" around the project. That being said, again echoing Shane, I think mails like this that are purposefully designed to increase engagement and transparency will ensure that most issues are addressed in an appropriate and timely fashion. Keep up the great work. Ross �- Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:rabas...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 14:34 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains Is this intended as a blog post? �It reads like one. In particular I don't see any proposals to discuss. -Rob On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:30 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: We are just one month into being the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling. �It is useful to interesting to take stock of all that is happening and where we are. The main activity that we are all holding our breath over is the reconstitution of the code base under Apache. �There is also concern for the documentation and web sites and how they fit under an Apache umbrella. Depending on their interests and specialties, not everyone here is immediately able to contribute much. �We are in the process of organizing and bringing over and IP-scrubbing the initial artifacts for the pr
Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
Responding as a mentor - not as an OO.o committer... On 12 July 2011 23:39, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Good point, Rob. I am not floating a proposal, more an opportunity for > discussion. Here are some questions: > > 1. When should we conclude that the Initial Committers that have arrived are > all that are coming and we should close the door, with all further committers > being by invitation of the PPMC? I'd suggest sending a notification to all who self-identified that they have 10 days to either submit an ICLA or indicate that they are taking advice before signing. The PPMC has been active in chasing people. It's legitimate to close the door on those who do not respond to such a request. For those who are "taking advice" I would give an additional 30 days. > 2. A person is considered eligible to become a committer when there is an > established pattern of contribution on the project: > <http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html>. > > 2.1 To what degree should contributions elsewhere -- a prior reputation -- > be taken into consideration? > 2.2 For how long should we do this, if at all? Contributions elsewhere do not count. It is contributions here that matter. There was plenty of time during proposal time for past contributors to step up. They did not. Now this is an ASF project everyone needs to earn merit in the ASF project not in what went before. > 3. What do you expect to see as demonstration that the PPMC is being > even-handed in the invitation of new committers? Consistency in the application of committer selection guidelines. That, of course, begs the question "what are our selection guidelines". Personally I don't see any need to define these in advance. Anyone on the PPMC can propose anyone for committership. A discussion will take place and, in most cases a vote will be called. If I, as a mentor, see someone being inconsistent in their support or obstruction of any individual I will ask them to justify their position. If their position is consistent across each case then their opinion is entirely valid. Trying to define "rules" for these things does not make any sense, the types of contribution are just too variable. It is best to just let these things evolve and deal with them on a case by case basis, openly and transparently. > 4. Is it understood why the ooo-secur...@incubator.apache.org list is being > created and the safeguards that are intended with regard to the security > under which matters of security are raised? As a mentor I have some concerns about this. The private@ list is for private project communications. We've already seen far too much happening on the private@ list (although I am pleased to report to the ooo-dev list that this practice seems to have stopped now - well done PPMC members). That being said, I can see the logic in the argument. as long as this list is used *only* for security issues it should be fine. > 5. Most important: This is a learning experience for all of us. What do you > want cleared up around these growing-pain considerations? I'll echo Shane's comments here. There is no need to rush things. Let them evolve naturally. Trying to anticipate issues before they arrive is likely to result in too much "red tape" around the project. That being said, again echoing Shane, I think mails like this that are purposefully designed to increase engagement and transparency will ensure that most issues are addressed in an appropriate and timely fashion. Keep up the great work. Ross > > - Dennis > > -Original Message- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:rabas...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 14:34 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains > > Is this intended as a blog post? It reads like one. In particular I > don't see any proposals to discuss. > > -Rob > > On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:30 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: > >> We are just one month into being the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling. It is >> useful to interesting to take stock of all that is happening and where we >> are. >> >> The main activity that we are all holding our breath over is the >> reconstitution of the code base under Apache. There is also concern for the >> documentation and web sites and how they fit under an Apache umbrella. >> >> Depending on their interests and specialties, not everyone here is >> immediately able to contribute much. We are in the process of organizing >> and bringing over and IP-scrubbing the initial artifacts for the project >> that will be the foundation for further work. There is not much to get our >> teeth into in terms of actual development until that is sorted out. (E.g.,
Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
Indeed, I would urge PPMC members to push regular posts to the OOo blog. While we do our work here on dev@ in public, it's often easier for the greater world to follow a blog posting than it is to follow mailing lists. From my perspective (as a mentor, not on the PPMC), here are some suggestions: On 7/12/2011 6:39 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Good point, Rob. I am not floating a proposal, more an opportunity for discussion. Here are some questions: 1. When should we conclude that the Initial Committers that have arrived are all that are coming and we should close the door, with all further committers being by invitation of the PPMC? PPMC volunteers should double-check that each Initial Committer has definitely been contacted personally, and perhaps send out another email to each individual separately reminding them of the invitation and setting a deadline (say in a week or so) for accepting the invitation to become an initial committer. If they don't respond positively (or with an obvious "yes I need more time!", then take them off the list). It's been long enough. 2. A person is considered eligible to become a committer when there is an established pattern of contribution on the project:<http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html>. 2.1 To what degree should contributions elsewhere -- a prior reputation -- be taken into consideration? 2.2 For how long should we do this, if at all? This is a tough one. I wouldn't go too much further at "auto" inviting past OOo contributors, because this is a new project community, and it's important to see how well potential committers fit into this community. In any case, if you do evaluate past contributions, be sure to include an assessment of individuals ability to work with peers in a community. If you read the newcommitter.html list, you'll notice that the item about coding ability comes last on the list. 3. What do you expect to see as demonstration that the PPMC is being even-handed in the invitation of new committers? A process just like this one, where the community actively and productively discusses the issue here on the dev@ list. 8-) 4. Is it understood why the ooo-secur...@incubator.apache.org list is being created and the safeguards that are intended with regard to the security under which matters of security are raised? I would hope so. The PPMC is responsible for the project as a whole and the product (we will be) shipping. However I would take recommendations from the Apache Security team very seriously - they have a lot of experience with security and privacy. 5. Most important: This is a learning experience for all of us. What do you want cleared up around these growing-pain considerations? Patience and thoughtful participation are key. Seriously: this is great stuff, and while it seems a little chaotic, it's great to see so many people participating and being constructive at figuring out both the technical and community issues. - Shane - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:rabas...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 14:34 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains Is this intended as a blog post? It reads like one. In particular I don't see any proposals to discuss. -Rob On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:30 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: We are just one month into being the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling. It is useful to interesting to take stock of all that is happening and where we are. The main activity that we are all holding our breath over is the reconstitution of the code base under Apache. There is also concern for the documentation and web sites and how they fit under an Apache umbrella. Depending on their interests and specialties, not everyone here is immediately able to contribute much. We are in the process of organizing and bringing over and IP-scrubbing the initial artifacts for the project that will be the foundation for further work. There is not much to get our teeth into in terms of actual development until that is sorted out. (E.g., we don't have a bug tracker yet and the documentation, localization, and user-facing folk, including marketing, are still wondering how our project will accommodate them.) Meanwhile, there is also how we organize ourselves to operate as an Apache project. - Dennis 1. BOOTSTRAPPING COMMITTERS AND THE PPMC 2. HOW LONG IS THE OPEN DOOR OPEN? 3. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO BE A COMMITTER AS TIME GOES ON? 4. WHEN BEING MORE PRIVATE THAN PRIVATE IS IMPORTANT 1. BOOTSTRAPPING COMMITTERS AND THE PPMC The set of Initial Committers is a self-selected group who added their names to the Initial Committers list on the original incubator proposal. That's how the podling is bootstrapped. Likewise, ooo-dev participation is fully self-selected, and it will stay that way. This means that we are a gr
RE: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
Good point, Rob. I am not floating a proposal, more an opportunity for discussion. Here are some questions: 1. When should we conclude that the Initial Committers that have arrived are all that are coming and we should close the door, with all further committers being by invitation of the PPMC? 2. A person is considered eligible to become a committer when there is an established pattern of contribution on the project: <http://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html>. 2.1 To what degree should contributions elsewhere -- a prior reputation -- be taken into consideration? 2.2 For how long should we do this, if at all? 3. What do you expect to see as demonstration that the PPMC is being even-handed in the invitation of new committers? 4. Is it understood why the ooo-secur...@incubator.apache.org list is being created and the safeguards that are intended with regard to the security under which matters of security are raised? 5. Most important: This is a learning experience for all of us. What do you want cleared up around these growing-pain considerations? - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:rabas...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 14:34 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains Is this intended as a blog post? It reads like one. In particular I don't see any proposals to discuss. -Rob On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:30 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: > We are just one month into being the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling. It is > useful to interesting to take stock of all that is happening and where we are. > > The main activity that we are all holding our breath over is the > reconstitution of the code base under Apache. There is also concern for the > documentation and web sites and how they fit under an Apache umbrella. > > Depending on their interests and specialties, not everyone here is > immediately able to contribute much. We are in the process of organizing and > bringing over and IP-scrubbing the initial artifacts for the project that > will be the foundation for further work. There is not much to get our teeth > into in terms of actual development until that is sorted out. (E.g., we > don't have a bug tracker yet and the documentation, localization, and > user-facing folk, including marketing, are still wondering how our project > will accommodate them.) > > Meanwhile, there is also how we organize ourselves to operate as an Apache > project. > > - Dennis > >1. BOOTSTRAPPING COMMITTERS AND THE PPMC >2. HOW LONG IS THE OPEN DOOR OPEN? >3. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO BE A COMMITTER AS TIME GOES ON? >4. WHEN BEING MORE PRIVATE THAN PRIVATE IS IMPORTANT > > > 1. BOOTSTRAPPING COMMITTERS AND THE PPMC > > The set of Initial Committers is a self-selected group who added their names > to the Initial Committers list on the original incubator proposal. That's > how the podling is bootstrapped. Likewise, ooo-dev participation is fully > self-selected, and it will stay that way. > > This means that we are a group of people who have not worked together as a > single Apache project community before, even though there are a variety of > mutual acquaintances and associations in the mix. > > Of the Initial Committers, a subset were eager to be on the project and have > arrived. That is the overwhelming source of the current 54 committers, 41 > also being on the PPMC. > > 2. HOW LONG IS THE OPEN DOOR OPEN? > > There are still about two-dozen Initial Committers who have not yet > registered an iCLA. We don't know if they are arriving or not. One issue is > when to close the door on initial committers who have taken no initiative to > be here, although reminders have been sent out. > > It is also the case that all initial committers are welcome to participate in > the PPMC but not all have taken action to do so. At some point, the PPMC > will not grow automatically and that also needs to be resolved. > > 3. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO BE A COMMITTER AS TIME GOES ON? > > We vote on other committers the same as any [P]PMC. The addition of two > invited committers has already been reported. > > One thing that concerns the PPMC (who, for all but two members, walked > through an open door) is how and when do we move from consideration of > previous reputation and being known to some of us to a situation where > contribution on the podling is the determining factor. We're working our way > through that. The PPMC is also concerned that, although the addition of new > committers and new PPMC members is carried out in private, we be transparent > about how we are conducting ourselves and that we demonstrate that we are > even-handed about i
Re: [DISCUSS] Project + PPMC Growing Pains
Is this intended as a blog post? It reads like one. In particular I don't see any proposals to discuss. -Rob On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:30 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: > We are just one month into being the Apache OpenOffice.org Podling. It is > useful to interesting to take stock of all that is happening and where we are. > > The main activity that we are all holding our breath over is the > reconstitution of the code base under Apache. There is also concern for the > documentation and web sites and how they fit under an Apache umbrella. > > Depending on their interests and specialties, not everyone here is > immediately able to contribute much. We are in the process of organizing and > bringing over and IP-scrubbing the initial artifacts for the project that > will be the foundation for further work. There is not much to get our teeth > into in terms of actual development until that is sorted out. (E.g., we > don't have a bug tracker yet and the documentation, localization, and > user-facing folk, including marketing, are still wondering how our project > will accommodate them.) > > Meanwhile, there is also how we organize ourselves to operate as an Apache > project. > > - Dennis > >1. BOOTSTRAPPING COMMITTERS AND THE PPMC >2. HOW LONG IS THE OPEN DOOR OPEN? >3. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO BE A COMMITTER AS TIME GOES ON? >4. WHEN BEING MORE PRIVATE THAN PRIVATE IS IMPORTANT > > > 1. BOOTSTRAPPING COMMITTERS AND THE PPMC > > The set of Initial Committers is a self-selected group who added their names > to the Initial Committers list on the original incubator proposal. That's > how the podling is bootstrapped. Likewise, ooo-dev participation is fully > self-selected, and it will stay that way. > > This means that we are a group of people who have not worked together as a > single Apache project community before, even though there are a variety of > mutual acquaintances and associations in the mix. > > Of the Initial Committers, a subset were eager to be on the project and have > arrived. That is the overwhelming source of the current 54 committers, 41 > also being on the PPMC. > > 2. HOW LONG IS THE OPEN DOOR OPEN? > > There are still about two-dozen Initial Committers who have not yet > registered an iCLA. We don't know if they are arriving or not. One issue is > when to close the door on initial committers who have taken no initiative to > be here, although reminders have been sent out. > > It is also the case that all initial committers are welcome to participate in > the PPMC but not all have taken action to do so. At some point, the PPMC > will not grow automatically and that also needs to be resolved. > > 3. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO BE A COMMITTER AS TIME GOES ON? > > We vote on other committers the same as any [P]PMC. The addition of two > invited committers has already been reported. > > One thing that concerns the PPMC (who, for all but two members, walked > through an open door) is how and when do we move from consideration of > previous reputation and being known to some of us to a situation where > contribution on the podling is the determining factor. We're working our way > through that. The PPMC is also concerned that, although the addition of new > committers and new PPMC members is carried out in private, we be transparent > about how we are conducting ourselves and that we demonstrate that we are > even-handed about it. > > It is not clear what the ooo-dev community wants to see and what the > understood progression to the normal rules for invitation of committers > should be. > > > 4. WHEN BEING MORE PRIVATE THAN PRIVATE IS IMPORTANT > > The PPMC is responsible for dealing, quietly and privately, with security > matters and their resolution. The security@ team informs us that because we > have so many members who are unknown here and also to each other at this > point, a limited ooo-secur...@incubator.apache.org list is essential. We > need to identify those few among us who have appropriate skills and > sensibilities around security matters and who can keep their work secret when > that is appropriate. > > For this, we want to know who has been on the security teams of > OpenOffice.org and who happen to be here also. There will also be > cross-communication with other security teams that operate on the same code > base, or in some cases, that operate on the same document formats. > > We will be going ahead with the creation of the private ooo-security list for > that purpose. What we are waiting for is identification of three moderators > who are distributed around the earth's time zones well enough to provide > moderation of incoming reports in something approximating 24/7 coverage. > > [end] >
