Because of its tangible nature, I would move #5 (AOO 4.1.2to #3), sliding #3 and #4 down to #4 and #5.
I think releasing AOO 4.1.2 is tangible work. I can see steps on Re-alignment with Community and External Organization moving along at the same time, and Community Re-alignment might matter for AOO 4.1.2, but I think #2 is a bigger deal. Basically, I don't see why there is linearity so much after #1 and #2, which are critical. AOO 4.1.2 and Community Re-alignment can clearly work together. External organization is a bit longer term and rather independent initially, if I understand what Andrea is looking for there. Summary: Interchange #4 and #5 as Andrea suggests, or bring #5 all the way up to #3 (assuming that there are already resources to define and complete AOO 4.1.2 among available committers). Either way, #1 and #2 are prerequisites. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 11:31 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Short-term priorities for OpenOffice Kay Schenk wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >> 1) Election a new PMC Chair ... >> 2) Internal reorganization: people say what they are going to do to drive >> the project forward ... >> 3) Re-alignment between PMC and active community ... >> 4) External reorganization: decide how we see OpenOffice as part of a >> larger ecosystem ... >> 5) Release OpenOffice 4.1.2 ... >> 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. >> > 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. What I'm suggesting is exactly to avoid discussing ideas on everything at the same time to ultimately get nothing. So I am saying: before discussing any ideas for #4, let's get give priority to #1, #2 and #3. And of course one week is not enough for the release; things will have to proceed in parallel, but the toxic behavior we must avoid it that someone blocks another discussion by saying "No, we should make a release before that". Back to the point: do you have anything against the idea that we discuss things in this order? I'm fine with swapping #4 and #5 for example. But if we don't have agreement on the order of the first 3, we won't be able to move forward. Regards, Andrea. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
