openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <>
Subject Nominations for a new PMC Chair
Date Wed, 07 Jan 2015 22:07:39 GMT

Yes I am available for election excellent chair and helped make the
transition to apache go smoothly, now its time we focus on outfacing

I am (again) managing our servers as well as pootle. I am planning some
major changes in the server setup to make maintenance semi-automatic. I
have supervised student projects that defined how our build system and
translation work flow could be stream lined.

I was and am helping with apacheCON, infra, incubator and other foundation
projects as well as give talks on events like FOSDEM. I believe ASF has a
lot more to offer than similar foundations and believe AOO can gain a lot
from that. I am also involved heavily in the new incubator project
Corinthia which aim at developing a responsive design office document
editor for mobile devices.

When I look at the other nominees they are all far more experienced and
dedicated to openOffice than I am. My force is not to have the long
openoffice history but a fresh view and therefore often different.

The formal role as chair is simple and merely administrative. My main
effort will, as PMC, be to push hard for action and changes...we have too
many good discussions that result in nothing....we need to stop talking and
start doing. Discussions are good for the community as long as they lead
somewhere. We are all too often confirming each other how well things are
and thus refraining from making changes.

The whole openoffice eco system, not just AOO, lack resources. The
eco-system is no longer in a situation where we can afford to compete and
still survive, we need to cooperate across projects. I believe being
totally open is the right way (independent of who reads our mailing lists)
and use it as an invitation to cooperate. I will work for more cooperation
with other openoffice projects and know we will need to accept significant
changes to accomplish this goal.

I am result oriented, so I will, as an example, push hard for a digital
signed windows release instead of waiting for buildbot and other
obstacles... showing results however small is one method to add energy to
our community and in my opinion a lot better than waiting and keep talking.
We need a far more active community.

A big part of the PMC is not visible in the project. I believe we should
try over a couple of months to reactivate the PMC members, and at the end
reduce our PMC to the active (hopefully everybody) members. I did that with
success in another project, and have since seen famous project like httpd
do the same. In my view it is better to have a smaller but active PMC, than
having a big partly inactive PMC.

I resigned as PMC because the above opinions (or at least my way of
presenting them), was not accepted or downright rejected. Voting me back
signals acceptance and/or willingness to change (of course we need to have
consensus on how to implement the changes). If we are to continue our
present line or only make slight adjustments, I am wrong for the
that case my presence will only cause heated discussion (like when I was

I am aware the above is quite a mouthful to lift, so this can only be done
with a PMC and Community that see the same goals. We all need to put in a
share of work, I can only help streamline the work.

Thanks for taking time to read this.

jan i

On Tuesday, January 6, 2015, Andrea Pescetti <> wrote:

> On 01/01/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> Let's take several days, until 10 January, to receive nominations (or
>> self-nominations) for the next PMC Chair. Just reply to this e-mail with
>> nominations.
> We have 6 nominees so far, very good since all of them would be excellent
> choices. I'm now asking each of them to either accept or refuse the
> nomination by the 10 January deadline. Nominations are still open, but if
> you nominate someone I'll immediately refer to this mail and ask for a
> statement by 10 January too.
> Each of the (current and future) nominees should answer this mail in
> public and state very briefly:
> 1) Whether he/she is available to run for election; the term is not set,
> but I expect an availability to stay in the role for at least one year.
> 2) Where his/her efforts will primarily be directed.
> 3) Regardless of whether one is running or not (and regardless of whether
> one is elected or not), it might be that some of the candidates wish to
> take responsibility for a certain area. This can be very good, since the
> project is huge and the Chair might miss some details. For example, Hagar
> often updates the draft quarterly report with information about the Forum
> (figures, issues...). If the Chair knows that someone commits to follow a
> certain area closely and to help in reporting, then reporting becomes a
> team work and can be much better than what we have done so far.
> The 6 nominees so far are, in alphabetical order:
> - jani    Jan Iversen
> - jsc     J├╝rgen Schmidt
> - kschenk Kay Schenk
> - louis   Louis Suarez-Potts
> - marcus  Marcus Lange
> - robweir Rob Weir
> I'm hereby asking each of them (and any future nominees) to provide their
> statement by 10 January; those who already sent their statement are free to
> expand upon it according to the above guidelines if they wish.
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message