Ross offered to come to the AOOi PPMC to fix it. I'm not clear what the PPMC has to do with it.
Specifically, @TheASF is not of AOOi PPMC origin. The question is, who is expected to do something about that and how is it to be communicated to them? Someone else is responsible for those tweets and their aggregation on the ASF home page.
Also, you refer to a blog post by Rob Weir on his own site. It is true that Rob Weir is a member of the AOOi PPMC, but that blog site is not a product of the AOOi PPMC and its aggregation into Roller is no different than the aggregation of any Apache committer posts that a committer arranges to include in the feed picked-up by Roller. (I believe the PPMC did authorize that "Get it Here" image and link to be used by sites that wanted to promote the availability of the software. If there should have been greater formality before doing that, there are places to raise that specific problem.)
My concern is how to determine what the infractions are that someone can do something about and also being clear who that someone is expected to be. The general claim just has us running around like headless chickens over on ooo-dev.
PS: I'm now in time-penalty and will check back anon.
From: Nick Kew [mailto:niq@...]
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:38
To: general@... Subject: Re: References to "Apache OpenOffice"
On 23 Jun 2012, at 18:48, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Nick, the AOOi project does not write those tweets from @TheASF and they are not under AOOi control.
> Are these and blog text occurrences the ones that attracted your attention or are there others?
> If you follow the links to the referenced blog posts you will see that the full term is used in the blog title. E.g., <https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache>.