cloudstack-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Website - CloudStack Collaboration Conference NA '13
Date Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:17:33 GMT
Most of the Apache policy stuff is actually quite light weight. But I
certainly remember it feeling heavy and bureaucratic when I was getting
used to it. I think you can broadly (and I've not thought about this for
more than a few seconds, so judge accordingly) split policy into two
categories. Things that are designed to allow groups of people to get stuff
done, and thing which are designed to make sure that the right groups of
people are notified of what is going on. And actually, the first depends on
the last.

I wouldn't worry too much about not getting an ACK. As Ross points out,
it's a good enough sign that nobody cares enough to object. Which is, of
course, what we call lazy consensus. Which is a really great social hack,
if you ask me. Voice your plans, and if nobody speaks up within a certain
amount of time, then you're free to just go ahead. (The other part of the
"getting stuff done" category revolves around how consensus is built, etc,
etc. No need to go into that now.)

The second category (making sure the appropriate people are made aware of
things) is crucial for the first one to work. It's fine for us to operate
on the principal that you say you're gonna do something and if nobody
objects you do it, but only if you say you're gonna do that thing to
the appropriate people _so they have a chance to_. If that makes sense?

Another way of framing my comments on this thread would be: I have no
problem with the conference. In fact, I think it looks great! A
really positive thing for the community and the project! But I am trying to
make sure that the appropriate people see what we're planning to do so that
we can do the whole "nobody raised any objections so we can go ahead with
this" thing.

Like I said, I actually think this is quite a lightweight system, once it's
internalised. I actually can't imagine anything more lightweight than just
having to announce your actions before you do them in case anybody wants to
object. ;)

I agree that policy is often... Well, it seems to vary depending on who you
speak to. We could document it better. And that's actually something that I
think a few people have been talking about recently. But you're right. In
the absence of data, do what you think is right. Be bold! And much better
to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission.

(Though, I would note that I don't think announcing your intention is a
form of permission seeking. Nor do I think anybody on this thread needs
to apologise! We're still figuring this stuff out as a project.)

I was actually thinking it might be a good idea to document this ourselves
somewhere. So that we have a simple to follow checklist of things to do
when planning these sorts of things. And you can just run down it as you go.

On 21 April 2013 16:46, Sebastien Goasguen <> wrote:

> On Apr 21, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Noah Slater <> wrote:
> > Karen, ignore my request. Despite having just read David's email, I
> didn't
> > tie your comment up to his comment. I have seen the link, and yes, PMC
> > approval for the conference itself seems to be established. Sorry for the
> > noise! :)
> >
> > Also, Mark, just to address your previous comment about "hoops". Sorry if
> > my emails are frustrating. I don't want to be a bother. I just think we
> > ought to do this right. (And trying to figure out what that means
> myself.)
> >
> > I don't think there are any major problems here. If ConCom have already
> > seen this, then that's good. Though, as I mention, I'd like to be able to
> > look up the thread. The only thing I would say here is that
> > should be CCed when reaching out to ConCom
> > and Trademarks, and what have you, just so we're all kept in the loop on
> > this stuff.
> >
> A side note in this overall thread. I sent an email to concom about two
> events I requested approval for. I got not reply, not ack.
> Then I saw a reply from concom to one of Noah's emails and this told me
> that they are not as organized as what they would like to be.
> We have to strike a balance between being perfect Apache citizens which
> sometimes strikes me as being overly bureaucratic with policies all over
> the place and ack and approval and consensus on every single action and
> being staleā€¦
> Just my thoughts. If there is no evil I better ask for forgiveness than
> permissionā€¦(sometimes)
> -sebastien
> > About the trademarks stuff. I guess my only comment would be that this
> sort
> > of stuff is usually best sorted out before going live. I don't expect
> we'll
> > have any major problems. But the larger the event, the more circumspect
> we
> > should be.
> >
> > I just took a look at the website now, with a critical eye. And I have a
> > few questions, with my "user hat" on:
> >
> > 1) Who is running this conference? It looks to me like Apache CloudStack
> is
> > running it. Is that the case? If so, how is the community being involved?
> > If not, then who is, and what is the relationship to CloudStack?
> >
> > 2) The copyright says "all rights reserved." Not sure where we stand on
> > that sort of thing. At the very least, we may want to add "Apache
> > CloudStack, CloudSTack, and the project logo are trademarks of The Apache
> > Software Foundation" or something.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 21 April 2013 15:43, Noah Slater <> wrote:
> >
> >> Karen,
> >>
> >>
> >> On 21 April 2013 02:48, Karen Vuong <> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 6)           PPMC approval - 8 PMC members participated and seemed to
> all
> >>> be for the event (David has confirmed).
> >>>
> >>
> >> Is this approval for the conference, or for the branding/trademark
> stuff?
> >>
> >> Do you have a pointer to the thread where this was discussed?
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> --
> >> NS
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > NS


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message