[Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Jörg Schmidt-2
Hello,

I consider my proposal, by way of "lazy consensus" to have formally failed because "Bidouille" has objected.

Now I wanted to put my proposal new for decision, but Peter's proposal (and also already finished draft text) I like better.


Therefore I would like to propose:
----------------------------------

1. we still make corrections (if necessary) to Peter's text [1] and then publish it as a blog post in https://blogs.apache.org

2. we link 1. in https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/announcing-apache-openoffice-4-14 and in https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.8+Release+Notes

3. release as far as possible in the current year, in any case as soon as possible



Please mark your opinion with +1/0/-1.




greetings,
Jörg



[1]

"Dear OpenOffice Users


Thank you for taking interest into OpenOffice and your ongoing support
over the years. As of late as you have heared through various channels,
an Issue has popped up on Big Sur.

The issue affects on opening modern Microsoft Office Document formats
(files that end on docx, xlsx, etc.), which causes openoffice to crash
on Mac OSX Big Sur. Affected, as far as we know, are all OpenOffice
versions.

There is no workaround within OpenOffice at this point, and we will
address this issue in a new patch 4.1.9, which will be released to all
platforms, despite

the main reason is the Issue on Mac. We will see to it that we include
some other minor development to the patch, so everyone has something
from this unfortunate incident. But we know that this is a pressing
issue to our users,

So expect the patch soon.


In Order to identify the issue we had first a closer look at our build
in order to exclude any Issues with a wrong release. Next we updated the
build to a newer SDK Issue to exclude

an Issue in our support structures. After this we figured that our non
production ready but upcoming Version 4.2.0 is not affected by this
Issue. In an effort over Christmas a comparison took place between the
4.2.0 and 4.1.8 Versions to loacate potential Issues.

It seems we have found the code change that is solving the crash on Mac.
However we are testing the Solution at this point. If you want to join
the test riage of this fix, drop a mail in English to
[hidden email]. The more environments we can test the better
we can react on Issues.

The Project thanks Jim Jagelski for his endless effort during Christmas
time, and the French Forum users [...] who did support the development
by their dedicated testing efforts.


All the best and stay healthy"








---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Dave Fisher-2
Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year. We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.

Thanks for your efforts.

+1 once the text is properly edited.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 27, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Jörg Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I consider my proposal, by way of "lazy consensus" to have formally failed because "Bidouille" has objected.
>
> Now I wanted to put my proposal new for decision, but Peter's proposal (and also already finished draft text) I like better.
>
>
> Therefore I would like to propose:
> ----------------------------------
>
> 1. we still make corrections (if necessary) to Peter's text [1] and then publish it as a blog post in https://blogs.apache.org
>
> 2. we link 1. in https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/announcing-apache-openoffice-4-14 and in https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.1.8+Release+Notes
>
> 3. release as far as possible in the current year, in any case as soon as possible
>
>
>
> Please mark your opinion with +1/0/-1.
>
>
>
>
> greetings,
> Jörg
>
>
>
> [1]
>
> "Dear OpenOffice Users
>
>
> Thank you for taking interest into OpenOffice and your ongoing support
> over the years. As of late as you have heared through various channels,
> an Issue has popped up on Big Sur.
>
> The issue affects on opening modern Microsoft Office Document formats
> (files that end on docx, xlsx, etc.), which causes openoffice to crash
> on Mac OSX Big Sur. Affected, as far as we know, are all OpenOffice
> versions.
>
> There is no workaround within OpenOffice at this point, and we will
> address this issue in a new patch 4.1.9, which will be released to all
> platforms, despite
>
> the main reason is the Issue on Mac. We will see to it that we include
> some other minor development to the patch, so everyone has something
> from this unfortunate incident. But we know that this is a pressing
> issue to our users,
>
> So expect the patch soon.
>
>
> In Order to identify the issue we had first a closer look at our build
> in order to exclude any Issues with a wrong release. Next we updated the
> build to a newer SDK Issue to exclude
>
> an Issue in our support structures. After this we figured that our non
> production ready but upcoming Version 4.2.0 is not affected by this
> Issue. In an effort over Christmas a comparison took place between the
> 4.2.0 and 4.1.8 Versions to loacate potential Issues.
>
> It seems we have found the code change that is solving the crash on Mac.
> However we are testing the Solution at this point. If you want to join
> the test riage of this fix, drop a mail in English to
> [hidden email]. The more environments we can test the better
> we can react on Issues.
>
> The Project thanks Jim Jagelski for his endless effort during Christmas
> time, and the French Forum users [...] who did support the development
> by their dedicated testing efforts.
>
>
> All the best and stay healthy"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Jörg Schmidt-2
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was:
> [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
>
> Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be
> edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year.
> We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for
> 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.
>
> Thanks for your efforts.
>
> +1 once the text is properly edited.

see:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Peter Kovacs-3
Thanks Jörg! Good move.

I moved the parent to 4.1.9 Release notes and added the link to the
section pre release blog post


On 27.12.20 18:20, Jörg Schmidt wrote:

>  
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was:
>> [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
>>
>> Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be
>> edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year.
>> We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for
>> 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.
>>
>> Thanks for your efforts.
>>
>> +1 once the text is properly edited.
> see:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
--
This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Dave Fisher-2
In reply to this post by Jörg Schmidt-2
Hi -

I made extensive edits for consistency and language.

Patricia, please take a look if you wish.

Regards,
Dave

> On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was:
>> [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
>>
>> Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be
>> edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year.
>> We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for
>> 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.
>>
>> Thanks for your efforts.
>>
>> +1 once the text is properly edited.
>
> see:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Jim Jagielski
Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog
article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
moot with the actual release?

Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release announcement...?

> On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> I made extensive edits for consistency and language.
>
> Patricia, please take a look if you wish.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>> On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was:
>>> [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
>>>
>>> Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be
>>> edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year.
>>> We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for
>>> 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your efforts.
>>>
>>> +1 once the text is properly edited.
>>
>> see:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Peter Kovacs-3

On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog
> article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
> moot with the actual release?

Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more often.

First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the first
time that we tell them what we did and why.

The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently it
is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more
frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome.

On third:  In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore
people will show up to look at the Release Candidate.

My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the blog
post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the people.

So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder, we
usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team works
more behind the scene.

>
> Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release announcement...?
>
>> On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi -
>>
>> I made extensive edits for consistency and language.
>>
>> Patricia, please take a look if you wish.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>> On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was:
>>>> [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
>>>>
>>>> Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be
>>>> edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year.
>>>> We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for
>>>> 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your efforts.
>>>>
>>>> +1 once the text is properly edited.
>>> see:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
--
This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Simon Phipps-4
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 1:13 PM Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog
> > article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
> > moot with the actual release?
>
> Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more
> often.
>
> First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the first
> time that we tell them what we did and why.
>
> The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently it
> is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more
> frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome.
>
> On third:  In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore
> people will show up to look at the Release Candidate.
>
> My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the blog
> post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the people.
>
> So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder, we
> usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team works
> more behind the scene.
>

One more "pro" reason is SEO. By creating a blog post about the issue -
preferably quoting the error message the user sees as that's what they are
likely to type into the search box - search engines are more likely to
direct users to the project's explanation than to other locations.

S.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Jim Jagielski
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3
All good points, which was exactly what I was looking, and hoping, for. Thx. Glad to see that people are actually thinking hard about these things not only from a community development aspect, but also from a, for lack of a better word, strategic viewpoint.

> On Dec 28, 2020, at 8:13 AM, Peter Kovacs <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog
>> article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
>> moot with the actual release?
>
> Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more often.
>
> First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the first time that we tell them what we did and why.
>
> The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently it is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome.
>
> On third:  In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore people will show up to look at the Release Candidate.
>
> My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the blog post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the people.
>
> So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder, we usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team works more behind the scene.
>
>>
>> Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release announcement...?
>>
>>> On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi -
>>>
>>> I made extensive edits for consistency and language.
>>>
>>> Patricia, please take a look if you wish.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>> On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was:
>>>>> [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
>>>>>
>>>>> Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be
>>>>> edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year.
>>>>> We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for
>>>>> 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your efforts.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 once the text is properly edited.
>>>> see:
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
> --
> This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html <http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Jörg Schmidt-2
In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 1:18 PM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was:
> [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
>
> Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually
> post a blog
> article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
> moot with the actual release?

Yes, absolutely!

If this is contradicted I will immediately start to add to the release notes.

> Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release
> announcement...?

No!


Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Marcus (OOo)
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3
Am 28.12.20 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

>
> On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a blog
>> article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
>> moot with the actual release?
>
> Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more
> often.
>
> First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the first
> time that we tell them what we did and why.
>
> The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently it
> is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more
> frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome.
>
> On third:  In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore
> people will show up to look at the Release Candidate.

but then we shouldn't forget to mention the download location of the
RCs. Only then more people can help to test.

Marcus



> My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the blog
> post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the people.
>
> So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder, we
> usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team works
> more behind the scene.
>
>>
>> Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release announcement...?
>>
>>> On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi -
>>>
>>> I made extensive edits for consistency and language.
>>>
>>> Patricia, please take a look if you wish.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>> On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was:
>>>>> [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
>>>>>
>>>>> Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be
>>>>> edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year.
>>>>> We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for
>>>>> 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your efforts.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 once the text is properly edited.
>>>> see:
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Peter Kovacs-3

On 28.12.20 15:40, Marcus wrote:

> Am 28.12.20 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>
>> On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a
>>> blog
>>> article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
>>> moot with the actual release?
>>
>> Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more
>> often.
>>
>> First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the
>> first time that we tell them what we did and why.
>>
>> The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently
>> it is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more
>> frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome.
>>
>> On third:  In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore
>> people will show up to look at the Release Candidate.
>
> but then we shouldn't forget to mention the download location of the
> RCs. Only then more people can help to test.
>
> Marcus
We would then only learn of it if people run into issues. I rather have
them write a short mail to dev list, as I have suggested it in the proposal.

>
>
>
>> My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the
>> blog post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the
>> people.
>>
>> So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder,
>> we usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team
>> works more behind the scene.
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release
>>> announcement...?
>>>
>>>> On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi -
>>>>
>>>> I made extensive edits for consistency and language.
>>>>
>>>> Patricia, please take a look if you wish.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM
>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was:
>>>>>> [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be
>>>>>> edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year.
>>>>>> We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for
>>>>>> 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your efforts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 once the text is properly edited.
>>>>> see:
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 
>>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
--
This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Marcus (OOo)
Am 28.12.20 um 19:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:

>
> On 28.12.20 15:40, Marcus wrote:
>> Am 28.12.20 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>
>>> On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>> Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post a
>>>> blog
>>>> article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
>>>> moot with the actual release?
>>>
>>> Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things more
>>> often.
>>>
>>> First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the
>>> first time that we tell them what we did and why.
>>>
>>> The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently
>>> it is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more
>>> frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome.
>>>
>>> On third:  In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore
>>> people will show up to look at the Release Candidate.
>>
>> but then we shouldn't forget to mention the download location of the
>> RCs. Only then more people can help to test.
>>
>> Marcus
> We would then only learn of it if people run into issues. I rather have
> them write a short mail to dev list, as I have suggested it in the
> proposal.

just to see if I understood it correctly:

- From the blog post the Mac users learns about the problem and want to
try the RC build
- They write a mail to dev@
- We write back a link where to download
- They then writes back if any issues arise or just to state that all is
fine

Right?

Marcus



>>> My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the
>>> blog post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the
>>> people.
>>>
>>> So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a reminder,
>>> we usually do not say anything, and people are used that the dev team
>>> works more behind the scene.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release
>>>> announcement...?
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi -
>>>>>
>>>>> I made extensive edits for consistency and language.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patricia, please take a look if you wish.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM
>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was:
>>>>>>> [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be
>>>>>>> edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year.
>>>>>>> We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for
>>>>>>> 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your efforts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 once the text is properly edited.
>>>>>> see:
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Marcus (OOo)
Am 28.12.20 um 20:32 schrieb Marcus:

> Am 28.12.20 um 19:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>
>> On 28.12.20 15:40, Marcus wrote:
>>> Am 28.12.20 um 14:13 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>>
>>>> On 28.12.20 13:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>>> Playing devil's advocate here: does it make sense to actually post
>>>>> a blog
>>>>> article about this and then, maybe a week later, have the article
>>>>> moot with the actual release?
>>>>
>>>> Yes I think it is worth it and we should train to do such things
>>>> more often.
>>>>
>>>> First of all we prepare our community on the patch. It will be the
>>>> first time that we tell them what we did and why.
>>>>
>>>> The second benefitial point is we will set a expectation. Currently
>>>> it is still fuzzy one, but people will be looking for an update more
>>>> frequently, so if we deliver a week later that would be awesome.
>>>>
>>>> On third:  In the blogpost is we invite for testing. So maybe m,ore
>>>> people will show up to look at the Release Candidate.
>>>
>>> but then we shouldn't forget to mention the download location of the
>>> RCs. Only then more people can help to test.
>>>
>>> Marcus
>> We would then only learn of it if people run into issues. I rather
>> have them write a short mail to dev list, as I have suggested it in
>> the proposal.
>
> just to see if I understood it correctly:
>
> - From the blog post the Mac users learns about the problem and want to
> try the RC build
> - They write a mail to dev@
> - We write back a link where to download
> - They then writes back if any issues arise or just to state that all is
> fine
>
> Right?

OK, for the moment I've added the following:

"We would be happy to give you more details when you want to help us
with testing. Just write a mail to the developers mailing list
[hidden email]."

Please tell me if something has to be adjusted.

Marcus



>>>> My last pro argument is we need also to link other channels to the
>>>> blog post. On facebook it takes some days untill a post reaches the
>>>> people.
>>>>
>>>> So in case we extend the range it would be great. Just as a
>>>> reminder, we usually do not say anything, and people are used that
>>>> the dev team works more behind the scene.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe it is better to address the issue with the release
>>>>> announcement...?
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I made extensive edits for consistency and language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patricia, please take a look if you wish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 27, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Jörg Schmidt <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2020 5:59 PM
>>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was:
>>>>>>>> [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please put Peter’s text in a cwiki page so that it can be
>>>>>>>> edited. We cannot promise a release by the end of the year.
>>>>>>>> We should not imply that macOS Big Sur is the only reason for
>>>>>>>> 4.1.9. All platforms will benefit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your efforts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 once the text is properly edited.
>>>>>>> see:
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=173080814 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Consensus Building] What we should do now (was: [lazy consensus] ... Big Sur)

Peter Kovacs-3

On 28.12.20 23:54, Marcus wrote:

> Am 28.12.20 um 20:32 schrieb Marcus:
>> Am 28.12.20 um 19:11 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>
>>> On 28.12.20 15:40, Marcus wrote:
>>> We would then only learn of it if people run into issues. I rather
>>> have them write a short mail to dev list, as I have suggested it in
>>> the proposal.
>>
>> just to see if I understood it correctly:
>>
>> - From the blog post the Mac users learns about the problem and want
>> to try the RC build
>> - They write a mail to dev@
>> - We write back a link where to download
>> - They then writes back if any issues arise or just to state that all
>> is fine
>>
>> Right?
That is the IDea, yes.
>
> OK, for the moment I've added the following:
>
> "We would be happy to give you more details when you want to help us
> with testing. Just write a mail to the developers mailing list
> [hidden email]."
>
> Please tell me if something has to be adjusted.
Looks great to me.
--
This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]