On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I see five short-term (say, something that must be either done or put
> towards completion by end of February) priorities for OpenOffice as a
> project. They overlap, and we, especially the PMC, need to agree on how to
> order them, otherwise we risk pulling in different directions and mutually
> blocking the initiatives from others.
>
> 1) Election a new PMC Chair (the Chair has one, and clearly defined, role:
> being the liaison officer between the OpenOffice PMC and Apache; he/she can
> do much more, and I have been doing much more and I'll still continue with
> the rest; but this is not part of the Chair duties).
>
> 2) Internal reorganization: people say what they are going to do to drive
> the project forward (so an "active" approach rather than the "I don't have
> time, but someone should..." approach which is not working).
>
> 3) Re-alignment between PMC and active community (the PMC, not the Chair,
> steers the project; so people who work must be in the PMC and people in the
> PMC should confirm they are still interested in being there).
>
> 4) External reorganization: decide how we see OpenOffice as part of a
> larger ecosystem, so what we can do in terms of collaboration with other
> projects that are from Apache or from outside Apache.
>
> 5) Release OpenOffice 4.1.2 (all of this must produce something for our
> users!). This has a number of significant subtasks and preliminary tasks
> (Release manager, digital signing...) but it would be pointless to address
> them now.
>
> I'm asking for consensus, especially from PMC members, that we can carry
> forward these 5 actions in the order I used above. I know you might have
> different priorities, but if we manage to get these 5 items tabled we can
> get rid of the "I see other priorities" blocker. Note that, if we act
> responsibly and we are determined, we could start a new item (of the 5)
> every week, so by the end of February we can find an answer or a roadmap
> for everything listed above.
>
> Do you agree with this scheduling? If it's a "no", please say it now (and
> please give an alternative, otherwise we can't move), but if we have a
> large majority of "yes" I'll move forward according to this plan.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
>
>
For me, #1, #2, and #5 seem tangible and do-able in the short term, thought
I suspect #5 will be longer than February.
No opinion on #3.
Until we address internal issues, does it make sense to think about #4 in
any serious way? I'm not sure of the extent of this one, and don't see this
as a short term goal. Maybe more information on ideas would help.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"An old horse for a long, hard road,
a young pony for a quick ride."
-- Texas Bix Bender
