community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)
Date Sat, 28 May 2016 02:31:32 GMT
Here was your reply to me when I first pointed out the deficiencies with president@.  So much
for the difficult to understand flowery prose, you keep changing your stripes with each passing
hour:

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Joseph Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Having a foundation wide CoC is great, but as to whether president@ is effective I have
> never seen the board report which indicates that it is actually being used and things
are
> happening with those reports (if any).
>
> Rather than a generic officer address I suggest a dedicated alias with named people in
> the CoC responsible for follow up. Expectations of confidentiality need to be communicated
> because I believe we still archive the president@ alias.

Joe, thank you for this suggestion. This is precisely the kind of
actionable AND non-trivial
suggestions that so far have been lacking on this thread.

Shall we fork it into a separate thread to get a closure? Show original message    On Friday,
May 27, 2016 10:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
 

 On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here's what I wrote to you on members@ Roman:
>
> """
> You're overlooking the archiving problem with president@ Roman.
> That we tell people in the CoC that a report to that channel is available
> to roughly 600 people unknown to them is needed if we are going to
> not paper over the fact that it's really not what a normal person would
> consider "confidential" despite the language in the CoC.  Much less the
> additional hundred or so unknown people on a pmc list who would have
> access to the report if it were made to private@pmc.
> """
>
> Hard to have an intelligent conversation with you Roman when only one of us
> is paying attention to what the other has said.

It would be much easier to have an intelligent conversation with me,
Joe, if your
english prose was structured along the lines of what Shane wrote to me.

I understand your desire for emphatic, floury language, but what you
don't realize
is that you make it very difficult to distill data points from your
paragraph by employing
that kind of language.

Thanks,
Roman.


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