openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Review of Forums Agreement
Date Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:37:30 GMT
I think by far the most important thing to realize is that we are trying 
to come up with well understood, basic guidelines for collaborative 
community governance here, under the broad umbrella of the Apache Way 
and an ASF podling.  We are not trying to come up with an international 
treaty with multinational repercussions, nor are we trying to come up 
with a detailed technical specification for a global technology standard.

I applaud attempts to make the overall proposal better understood by the 
whole community, but have to say the overly detailed and legalistic 
parsing of the wording is over the top here.

The main caveat for all of this is: the Apache OOo PPMC is the 
responsible body - as a whole - for managing and providing oversight of 
any content published from the project; this includes the website.  So 
whatever details are agreed here will always be subject to revision (by 
appropriate votes or consensus) as the community grows.

On 10/11/2011 4:32 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Rob Weir<>  wrote:

>> *C.* Forum admins must sign the ICLA. They will interact with the
>> Apache Infra group and should be official project members. At least
>> one Moderator, who will sign the ICLA, or Admin on every NL forum will
>> commit to reporting forum status to the Project as determined by the
>> Apache OpenOffice PPMC
> Working with Apache Infra requires you have an Apache ID.  Without an
> ID you cannot get onto their mailing list.  Without an ID you have no
> identity in the system that they can assign permissions to.  What is
> really required is becoming a Committer.  That's what gets you an
> Apache ID.    Signing the iCLA is a pre-req for becoming a committer.
> But the iCLA by itself is not enough.

Actually anyone is welcome to work with Apache infra on their normal 
mailing lists or even open JIRAs to get work done, so there's no strict 
need for Apache IDs in many cases; not sure where you got that idea. 
However there are many tasks that are simpler to do within the ASF if 
the requester is a committer, so it certainly helps to be a committer.

> ...snip...
>> *D.* Moderators and Volunteers will keep their current functions and
>> will be created through the traditional process of nomination and lazy
>> consensus on the forum.
> If I read Dennis's cover letter correctly, he is asking the PPMC to
> bind ourselves to this proposal. Do we really want to bind ourselves
> to a decision making process and say that we will never change it?  Do
> we want to say that even if the forum volunteers, in the future, want
> to change the "traditional process", they cannot because the PPMC
> agreed previously to maintain this process?
> Maybe just say something like "Existing moderators and Volunteers will
> keep their current functions.  New moderators and volunteers will be
> created through the traditional process of nomination and lazy
> consensus on the forum, or by other means as the project may determine
> in the future".

Most of this is not a legal contract requiring binding signatures in 
triplicate, so personally, whatever people want to write here is fine 
with me.  I would hope that everyone is aware that how the project 
operates *is* going to change in the future as it grows - and the way 
that the project operates will follow the Apache Way of consensus-driven 
and collaborative changes.

>> *E.* Any [Apache Member|]
>> or [Apache OpenOffice
>> PPMC|] member can
>> request Apache Observer status and thereby gain read and write access
>> to all forums, including Forum Issues, and have read access to the
>> logs. Apache Observers will not have the capability to edit, delete or
>> move posts or perform administrative functions unless otherwise
>> elected to those positions by normal forum rules.
> This is good.  However, I think we need someone with the ability to
> edit, delete, etc.  Someone with oversite authority should have all of
> those permissions.  Maybe the IPMC Chair?  Maybe Apache Infra?  (Maybe
> they have that ability already?).

Since infra will be hosting the system, I would certainly expect they 
can grant write rights as needed for ASF business.

>> *G.* The new Terms of Use will be similar to the current ToU,
>> particularly the clause that
>> "You hereby grant to the Host and all Users a royalty-free, perpetual,
>> irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right
>> and license under Your intellectual property rights to reproduce,
>> modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from,
>> distribute, perform, display and use Your Submissions (in whole or
>> part) and to incorporate them in other works in any form, media, or
>> technology now known or later developed, all subject to the obligation
>> to retain any copyright notices included in Your Submissions. All
>> Users, the Host, and their sublicensees are responsible for any
>> modifications they make to the Submissions of others."  Note that
>> Apache Legal will review and approve the final ToUs, which will also
>> ensure that sufficient rights are granted to consider contributions
>> under the Apache License.
> Looks OK to me, but IANAL. Has this been reviewed?

Any ToUs definitely need ASF Legal signoff before being posted.

Likewise, there are a number of minor but required details to work out 
separately, like how infra actually hosts it, and what parts of the 
Apache Project Branding Requirements will be needed on the site.  But 
those are technical details we can work out in implementation.

- Shane

View raw message