community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anjana G Bhattacharjee <>
Subject Re: [proposal] integrating womAn@a.o into an Apache code of practice
Date Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:23:53 GMT
Hi Kathey,

Good to hear from you :-)

Let me try stepping through the issues you raise in turn below at this
stage, with a view to keeping all options open, as ever, in due course:

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Kathey Marsden <
> wrote:

>  On 8/19/2010 1:00 AM, Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
>> ARCHIVAL NOTE ONLY as at 28 days since inception of this proposal -
> My vote on this proposal if brought to vote would be

"if brought to vote" is certainly a good caveat to bear in mind IMHO,
particularly as there may be a handful of alternative voting mechanisms that
may apply in this case, notwithstanding the parameters usually applied by
the Apache community when awarding <member>@a.o email addresses as a "status
address" in and of itself

> -1
> Because
> - Golf and the other aspects of the proposal have  nothing to do with
> software.
> - The structure is ungoverned  and falls totally outside of the Apache pmc
> structure and seems to involve some sort of monarch (the Prime Mover).
> -  it is involves money unnecessarily, which is never a good idea.
> - it is extremely complex, which is also never a good idea.
> - I thought it was some sort of joke that I didn't understand and I guess I
> was mistaken. Although I am not very smart, I think others might also find
> it difficult to understand how  a Prime Mover, golf and a WTF fund have any
> relevance to the Apache Software Foundation.

It may be helpful to turn each of these points of opinion into a question at
this proposal stage in order to facilitate discussion - for example:

- what does golf have to do with software?
- what do other aspects of the proposal have to do with software?
(specifying which "other aspects")
- how is the structure governed, if at all?
- does the structure fall outside the Apache PMC structure?
- does the structure involve some sort of a monarch?
- is it necessary to involve money?
- is it complex?
- is it some sort of joke?
- are others finding it difficult to understand "how  a Prime Mover, golf
and WTF fund have any relevance to the Apache Software Foundation"

In particular, some of these questions may have been answered already - e.g.
see ARCHIVAL NOTE dated 19 Aug 2010 under this thread for related
interactions and links to cited references - whilst others may best be left
open to question, for the time being at least, with a view to compiling a
project FAQ in due course ;-)

> The valid point to the proposal is that sometimes a less public address is
> needed for  reporting problems, especially misconduct.   I think we can
> accommodate such complaints in the existing private lists. e.g.
>  Problem with a specific project, you can send to private@<project>.a.o,
> problem with a PMC or PMC  member, you can send to private@community.a.o,
> problem with a community PMC member or board member, talk to a board member
> you trust.  There is also legal-internal if you think some law was broken.
>  Documenting such an escalation procedure, I think is a good idea and
>  should be plenty to satisfy this concern.

Thank you for specifically drawing out this point in a further detail - so,
how might existing procedures fair with the expectations of those involved
in and/or considering involvement in the emerging "formal" mentoring
programme? For example, are the recepients of these "private" addresses
actually named individuals in relation to any third party institutional
checks and balances already in place? And have such procedures been agreed
as per funding provision for the duration of the EU-supported programme at

> Back to fixing bugs for me....  I invite you again to join that effort.

Bug fixing no doubt crops up in all shapes and guises -

>  After contributing to the foundation for a while and seeing how it works
> [1], you can obtain sufficient merit to have an influence.  I think after
> you do, you will realize this proposal is not appropriate for the ASF.

- for example, there appears to be at least one perenniel "bug" rampent in
the form of (unofficial?) meritocracy you here describe AFAIK - our best
beloved Wikipedia article on "meritocracy" has flagged the Apache Software
Foundation as "an example of an (open source) organization which officially
claims to be a meritocracy" for some years already [1] - but then, perhaps
this is a matter for currently serving Board members to clarify further at
this stage, as the thread on Presentations has already invited.

Of course, the "bugs" in the consensus process may not be entirely unrelated
- but maybe that's a task best left to a womAn@a.o ;-)

> Kathey
> [1]

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