openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From MiguelAngel <>
Subject Re: [WWW][Policy] Rewriting
Date Sun, 20 Nov 2011 02:52:51 GMT
El 19/11/11 15:16, Shane Curcuru escribió:
> I can actually answer part of this question somewhat definitively:
> On 2011-11-18 9:07 PM, MiguelAngel wrote:
>> El 19/11/11 0:50, Rob Weir escribió:
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts
>>> <>  wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> I pretty much did the initial draft of the page and set the logic of
>>>> what counted as "participate" and "contribute".  And I was raked over
>>>> the coals by the United Developers of the World who critiqued my
>>>> conflation of any old contribution with sophisticated development.
>>>> Point taken, they were right, I was wrong, but the point was to grow
>>>> the project and to thus justify its existence. Development would come,
>>>> once the market was established.
>>>> So now we are here. What do we want out of this? Do we want to re-do
>>>> the strategy of yore and expand the market?
>>> Hi Louis,  I was making a much narrower point, that if I were looking
>>> to donate cash to an open source project, I would not think to look
>>> under a link that read "I want to participate".  That was my only
>>> point.  I wasn't expressing an opinion on code versus other forms of
>>> participation.  We need and welcome volunteers of all kinds.
>>> -Rob
>> Hi Louis, Rob,
>> Please, who is ** we **?
>> Maybe can be misunderstood.
>> Miguel Ángel
> The we in "We need and welcome volunteers of all kinds" refers to the
> Apache OpenOffice PPMC and it's set of active committers on this
> mailing list.
> I think this is another significant difference between how the
> previous project ran, and how the Apache OpenOffice
> podling runs.  From discussion here and elsewhere, it's clear that in
> the past there were a *lot* of people who claimed various
> relationships with the previous project.  Then, as now,
> it wasn't often clear what, specifically, those relationships were, or
> who could authoritatively speak on behalf of the project (well, in
> that case, various projects, like education, calc, marketing, etc. etc.)
> For Apache OpenOffice, the governance is clear: PPMC members vote on
> releases and new committers, and may, in consultation with the PPMC,
> speak about the project with some authority.  All committers may
> checkin code and make proposals for the direction of the project.
> Contributors on Apache OpenOffice are welcomed, and encouraged to
> participate more by submitting patches, ideas, proposals, and whatever
> else you can think of that would help.  But they are not officially
> part of the project and may not speak on the project's behalf.
> Separately, the idea of "admins", "leads", and various other titles
> from the previous project is no more.  Apache
> OpenOffice has PPMC members, committers, and now - while it's in
> incubation - mentors.  There are no other titles normally given out at
> Apache projects, nor are there *any* long-term titles for Apache
> projects other than a PMC chair (which is after AOO graduates).
> Justin Erenkrantz' presentation about the Apache Way has a great way
> to think about leadership in Apache projects:
> "Whomever has the best idea 'leads'... until a better idea is
> presented to the group, and then that new person 'leads'."
> - Shane, AOO mentor

Hi Shane, many thanks, once more a clear and detailed answer.

But let me express an oponion. Maybe cultural differences, but "we"
("our trademarks" in others recent mails) sounds, something possesive
and not much clear. "We" can represent different groups depending on the
subjective intention from whom is using it.
Seem to me more correct, to use the choosed name "Apache OpenOffice need
and welcome volunteers of all kinds" or "Apache OpenOffice PPMC", as the
case, at least in the public comunications like is the web page and the
abreviation 'AOO' or 'PPMC' for example in the ML, like in your
signature. Or maybe "Are needed and welcome volunteers of all kinds",
could be a better expression.

Not only in relation to this, but even in the english pages of the
proyect it is important to think that many-many people like me, for whom
the english is not their primary language, can read it, and know nothing
about internal structure of the proyect.
As less possibilities of interpretation, more right understanding by the
Miguel Ángel.

View raw message