openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrea Pescetti <>
Subject Re: PMC FAQ update
Date Sat, 07 Mar 2015 19:15:25 GMT
On 07/03/2015 jan i wrote:
> On 7 March 2015 at 01:55, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> answer to your question on who is moderating the API list can readily be
>>> found at and needed no
>>> further discussion.
>> ... which is of course the first place anyone would think to look!

Well, I simply opened the list archives at then 
searched for "api list moderators" and clicked on the first (oldest) 
result. This is very easy.

>> apparently harmless updates Kay proposed --
>> and was already implementing -- had been vetoed for undocumented reasons by
>> unknown voices in a secret venue. Doesn't sound like the Apache Way.

Very exaggerated tones. Just go back to see that Kay posted the first 
message (and this was a mistake, promptly rectified) to both the dev and 
private list. People answered where they happened to read the message 
first. By the way, I had suggested on this list to remove the names (for 
no other reasons that the list is simply unmaintainable as it is now, 
and an outdated list serves no purpose). There were no vetoes or any 
other bad or secret behavior. Simply, the issue is very minor, regarded 
by almost everybody as minor and it's better to go for the most 
maintainable solution. I proposed an approach that still allows to see 
the moderators' names in real time, while not imposing to us the burden 
to update a static web page every time a change is done. The Apache Way 
is always honored at OpenOffice.

>> It begs the question why that reaction happened.

I for sure would have dismissed the issue saying that it is useless work 
to maintain a separate list. And nothing else.

> long discussions which could just as well be public. I am convinced that
> the PMC is NOT doing this on purpose, but simply because they forget.

That is a sane approach to the issue. Yes, I will answer to the thread 
wherever it is. This particular discussion was for no reason sent to 
both dev and private and I replied to it here and there.

> Without disclosing content here are some interesting numbers:
> private@aoo compared to dev@aoo
> March: 53 on private@, 93 on dev@
> Feb: 347 on private@, 400 on dev@
> Jan: 111 on private@, 542 on dev@

I'll answer this in the new thread, but people who are always assuming 
we have fantastic secrets to discuss on the private list would be very 
amused (except conspiracy theorists, who would be disappointed) if they 
saw the real messages!


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message