Membership Committee

Hi,

I've been reading over the BOD-discuss list with regards to the MC
makeup/elections.

It was my intent to run for a seat on the MC, it is my understanding now
that the elections will be moved to next year (the reasons seem quite
reasonable IM).

If I understand correctly there is however one slot currently not
filled, for a generic deputy. If this is correct then I would like to
offer my services for this position.

Sincerely,

Drew Jensen

Hi Drew,

I've been reading over the BOD-discuss list with regards to the MC
makeup/elections.

  Cool :slight_smile: great to have you involved in the process.

It was my intent to run for a seat on the MC, it is my understanding now
that the elections will be moved to next year (the reasons seem quite
reasonable IM).

  Oh - sorry that was a spoke in your wheels. Hopefully that'll get fixed
in a few more (hectic) months.

If I understand correctly there is however one slot currently not
filled, for a generic deputy. If this is correct then I would like to
offer my services for this position.

  That's right. Of course, the board will need to approve the lucky
(haha) candidates in due course :wink: You have my vote - based on the
great work I've seen you doing.

  Having said that - we've sounded out previous appointees more
informally beforehand, which is perhaps harder here. Clearly this is a
responsible role, and part of our formal governance. As such, some may
have queries about your involvement with the Apache project, it'd be
helpful to know what your plans are there. Similarly, it'd be nice to
know your thoughts on the membership committee's role, criteria for
membership etc. in the bylaws. If you'd feel happier sharing that
privately - feel free, and I'll make sure it gets to the board.

  Anyhow - to my mind it'd be fantastic to have your long experience of
the project, wide contacts, as well as sheer hard work applied to this
essential administrative task :slight_smile:

  Thanks for caring, and getting stuck in,

  All the best,

    Michael.

Howdy Micheal, et al,

Hi Drew,

<snip>

> It was my intent to run for a seat on the MC, it is my understanding now
> that the elections will be moved to next year (the reasons seem quite
> reasonable IM).

  Oh - sorry that was a spoke in your wheels. Hopefully that'll get fixed
in a few more (hectic) months.

as I said, the rational for the change makes sense to me.

> If I understand correctly there is however one slot currently not
> filled, for a generic deputy. If this is correct then I would like to
> offer my services for this position.

  That's right. Of course, the board will need to approve the lucky
(haha) candidates in due course :wink: You have my vote - based on the
great work I've seen you doing.

Thanks

  Having said that - we've sounded out previous appointees more
informally beforehand, which is perhaps harder here. Clearly this is a
responsible role, and part of our formal governance. As such, some may
have queries about your involvement with the Apache project, it'd be
helpful to know what your plans are there.

Huh, it never crossed my mind that this would come up...ok, reality.

Well, my plans - truthfully I'm not sure how my activity will
progressive within the Apache OpenOffice poddling. Presently I'm not
really doing anything there, my intent is to help out some with support
and QA tasks - if I can incorporate that into my schedule in such a way
that my efforts are useful I'll continue and if not quietly remove
myself from the project management committee.

Surely I could expand on my ideas of the two projects but am not at all
certain that would add much to the decision process here - I will add
just this, I don't feel that I would have any problem compartmentalizing
my activities between the two projects and should it arise that there is
some conflict would quickly take steps to resolve it, as needed.

If there are any other concerns on this point please, anyone, feel free
to ask and I will take the time to address them as best I can.

Similarly, it'd be nice to
know your thoughts on the membership committee's role, criteria for
membership etc. in the bylaws. If you'd feel happier sharing that
privately - feel free, and I'll make sure it gets to the board.

<snip>

(In the sniped paragraph) You use the term "administrative task" and I
would say that this particular role is and should be best described by
just such wording. In my understanding of the by-laws as written the
goal of the membership committee is first and foremost to ensure that a
fair and sensible measure is applied during the decision process
regarding an individual's meritocratic contributions to the foundation's
activities.

I believe that I bring a number of personal attributes that fit quite
well to such a task.

A good general understanding of all the processes that go into growing
and maintaining our community and our projects/products.

A good working relationship with many of the individuals that make up
the foundation, both the official membership and our broader group of
supports.

The above will help to expeditiously process the applications.

Finally - IMO I also bring a good sensibility to such a task, meaning
that while I have no problem making my own decisions I try not to be
dogmatic, remaining open and receptive to input from the other people
involved on tasks.

Once again if there are any questions from anyone else please do not
hesitate to ask.

Sincerely,

Drew Jensen

It is none of my business how TDF establishes its governance and qualifies its officials.

Just the same, I thought it strange that there was a question of any conflict seen in Drew Jensen's participation on Apache projects.

I want to say two things, because I have Drew in high regard and I want to be clear about where he stands in my perspective and also my sense of the ASF philosophy and policies.

First about the ASF. The Apache Software Foundation celebrates diversity and multiplicity in the world of open-source development. It is a matter of policy that forks, peers, siblings, descendents and ancestors are all just fine, open-, close-, and licensed in any manner. Apache has its own licensing regime and development approach, but it has no issue with the preferences of other projects.

Now, some individuals have their personal histories, hurts, mistakes, and grievances, whatever they happen to be. But that is irrelevant to where ASF fulfills its charter to operation in the public interest. The ASF has no issue with whatever associations its contributors have beyond their contribution to Apache projects.

Individuals have differences and choose to go their own way, to return, to diverge, to scratch their own itches in whatever manner works for them. I say ASF honors all of that.

Secondly, I want to acknowledge Drew for his steady presence, especially in some timely moments in the run-up to the migration of the OpenOffice.org Forums under Apache hosting. Whatever Drew chooses to do, and whether he finds continued participation on AOOo inconsistent with that or not, I want it known that Drew is always welcome at AOOo, as is anyone else here, and he can come and go as he pleases with all of our blessings and thanks. There are no recriminations, there is no litmus test, and Drew will always be welcome to contribute in any manner he chooses.

'Nuff said?

[...]

First about the ASF.

This is not about ASF. ASF is just a mean to an IBM goal in that story.

Now, some individuals

This is not so much about individuals either... AOOo owe its existence
to Corporate politics and interest. It was by no stretch of the
imagination a grass root movement.

[..]

in the public interest.

Can you spare us the marketing line. Every similar 'Foundation'
operate under the same 'public interest' banner, which is a very broad
one, and does not means, contrary to what one would expect, 'in the
interest of the public'. (1)

[..]

There are no recriminations, there is no litmus test,

You mean except signing an iCLA ?

Drew will always be welcome to contribute in any manner he chooses.

Sure, but If Drew ask to be named V.P. of Community Development at
Apache, will he automatically get the job ? oh wait, no; I suppose he
has to, at least, become ASF member first...
wait, how one does become member at Apache ? humm... seems pretty
vague.... one cannot 'apply', one need to have buddies in the place
already to be 'proposed' for membership.... more like a Guild...

In the mean time Drew _is_ a member of TDF and as such is entitled to
run for BoD or MC, and of course to 'contribute in any manner he
chooses'... actually that later one does not even require membership,
or even signing up open ended liability agreement.

The question at hand is -- to avoid running BoD and MC election
concurrently, which would be a bad idea due to the necessary oversight
of each body on the election of the other -- how best organize the
transition to an elected MC. One proposition, that seems to be
favored, is to postpone the MC election to the middle of next year and
to re-conduct the current MC in the interim.
The problem is that the current MC does not have enough member to
conform to the foundation statute, as amended to fit the Host State
requirement. So we need to fill 1 MC member position and 3 MC deputy
positions.

Out current Bylaw provide that it is the prerogative of the BoD to
make such appointments. The only restriction established in the ByLaw
is that such appointees must be TDF members.
So every TDF member is eligible to such position, but none have any
'right' to it.

Just the same, I thought it strange that there was a question of any conflict seen in Drew Jensen's participation on Apache projects.

Since it is BoD's members prerogative to make such appointment, it
does not seems strange at all that they'd ask questions, publicly or
privately, to prospective candidate and other interested party to make
that decision.
And surely, when seeking a position of representation of the
membership -- which is the case of the MC, which represent the
membership in the process of evaluating the somewhat subjective
criteria of 'substantive contribution' -- it is expected that a higher
scrutiny be applied to questions of allegiance and purpose.

Of course all that will become moot in few months, when the membership
at large will be called-upon to make that decision. Still I would not
be surprised if that sort of questions -- if still of relevance --
were to pop-up during the election cycle.

Norbert

(1) One could create an 'Charitable Association' whose purpose is to
help anyone prepare and fill software patents. That would most likely
fit the tax requirement to get a 'Charitable' tax-exempt status, which
is a 'public-interest' Association... It is nevertheless very arguable
whether that Association would be 'in the interest of the public'.

I am not questioning the prerogatives of the TDF to govern itself in any
manner. Norbert is correct that I have no standing in the matter.

I was simply surprised that it came up here and Drew felt he had to address
it. I don't question his doing so and how deliberate he is being about it.

The AOOo project has committers and PPMC members who are also contributors to
LO. I know because I see their work in both places. No one has ever
questioned that at ASF. Not once.

However, I think Norbert's reply, below, is ample demonstration of the
polarization that individuals bring to these conversations. It is not just
AOOo members who say outrageous things. Of course, our own outrageous things
are always the truth, and therefore admirable, aren't they?

Norbert, you can make my note mean whatever you want. I stand by it as
written.

Also, I said that there are conditions on participation in various ways. It
is true here, and it is true at ASF. ASF has a license requirement, TDF has a
license requirement, there are ways one becomes a committer on Apache
projects, there are ways committer rights are granted for LO, etc. Apache has
a license grant requirement, the iCLA, that, here, is handled by an e-mail
message. ASF provides assurance of the code it releases in its way, the TDF
has it in its way.

I am not arguing the merits of any approach. Every open-source project has
its conditions for operation and participation. Developers will contribute
where it is comfortable and inviting for them. Not all developers are the
same in the choices they make.

How ASF members are elected and how the ASF board operates is all available
on-line and I am not going to go into it.

One more thing. I have found folks on ooo-dev who are cynical about the
honesty and character of TDF members, too, but nothing so blatantly virulent
as was just inserted here. I believe it is accurate to say that none of those
statements are policy positions of the respective organizations. When they
happen at AOOo I ignore them as trolling or, if there is a policy-unacceptable
action being proposed, I challenge them as inconsistent and unacceptable.

- Dennis E. Hamilton
   tools for document interoperability, <http://nfoWorks.org/>
   dennis.hamilton@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid

I am not questioning the prerogatives of the TDF to govern itself in any
manner. Norbert is correct that I have no standing in the matter.

I don't think that was the meaning of my reply, if that is what you
take out of it, allow me to apologize for my failure to communicate.
I did not meant to imply that _you_ are 'questionning the prerogative of TDF',
and even less challenge question of your standing.

Norbert, you can make my note mean whatever you want. I stand by it as
written.

I'm not following... you must have read in my message something more
personal than it was intended.

One more thing.  I have found folks on ooo-dev who are cynical about the
honesty and character of TDF members, too, but nothing so blatantly virulent
as was just inserted here.

I'm sorry, since you are top-posting, it is hard to known which part
exactly you are objecting to. Are there any facts in dispute ?

Norbert

Hi Drew,

Thanks for suggesting to help in the MC and your answer on Michaels questions.

drew wrote (05-11-11 21:31)

Howdy Micheal, et al,

I believe that I bring a number of personal attributes that fit quite
well to such a task.

As far as I have had contact with you over the past years, I can only confirm that.

Once again if there are any questions from anyone else please do not
hesitate to ask.

Not from me.
Kind regards,

Hi :slight_smile:
I think OpenOffice before the forking was under some fairly strange leadership. ie a company that worked hard to increase community participation but not being very trusting of the communities they had grown = actively blocking many proposed patches and stuff developed by the community.

Once Oracle took over things took a nose-dive and they demanded that people who held high positions in "their" community stepped down if they were also working in TDF. I've even heard that Oracle took ownership of funds built-up by the community and refused to cover community expenses.

So, we are dealing with 2 communities, or 1 fractured community that has been fed mis-information about each other. As someone fairly new to the scene i think Apache are pretty much friends especially compared to profit-hungry organisations such as Oracle. Hopefully time may heal some of the wounds but maybe a bit of dirty laundry needs to be aired in order for us to discover which bits of mis-information people have been fed. Hopefully we can do that a little more sensitively and compassionately in the future.

Just my 2 cents and quite probably contains inaccuracies as it's mostly stuff i have picked up from the press rather than at first hand.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile: