openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <apa...@robweir.com>
Subject Re: An example of what's wrong up with the wiki
Date Sun, 07 Aug 2011 17:09:40 GMT
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Aug 7, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> As mentioned before I'm concerned with the concentration of power on
>> the wiki, with a few moderators/admins having arbitrary power over
>> content, even though they have not signed the iCLA, are not committers
>> and have not been appointed by the PPMC.  So there is arbitrary
>> authority, with no accountability.  Having a system like this
>> abdicates the PPMC's responsibility for providing oversight to our
>> Apache-hosted project websites.
>>
>> I posted a new FAQ on the wiki today.  This was to demonstrate that
>> anyone could post anything on the wiki, under any license.
>>
>> The post was quickly taken down and my account was permanently
>> blocked.  This was done by someone who is not a PPMC member. In fact
>> this was a person who recently announced that he was leaving the
>> project because they had no time to participate.  But evidently there
>> is no process for removing someone's super-user permissions once they
>> claim to have left the project.   There was no discussion on the
>> ooo-dev or ooo-private about the content removal.  Nor was there any
>> discussion of the account ban.  It was just done.
>>
>> This is not how Commit Then Review works at Apache.   This proves my
>> point that we need to have all wiki users with permissions over other
>> users to be Committers.  Only committers should have the ability to
>> revert content made by other committers.  And this should only be done
>> with discussion.
>
> Sure, we'll need to change the rules when we take over the MediaWiki. We will need to
be assured that we only have PPMC members in the responsible positions. We will need contributors
to understand that all new contributions are under new rules and the old contributions are
either converted or problematic. We'll also need to a disclaimer about the wide variety of
licenses possible.
>

I agree with that sentiment.  But I don't sense consensus on this yet.
I get the impression that there are some who want to run an autonomous
community project "within Apache" but not "part of Apache".  Thanks
for the hardware, now leave us alone ;-)   This is all due to the
"original sin" of this project, that the "community" did not decide to
move to Apache.  So there are various degrees of acceptance of the
fact that it has moved, ranging from denial to acceptable, with all
the stage in between.  We need to get over it before we can get on
with it.

> I think there are some larger issues to think about than the wiki.
>

Any that are not already being discussed on the list?


> Regards,
> Dave

Mime
View raw message