community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)
Date Sat, 28 May 2016 02:35:22 GMT
Here is what Shane said:"Emails to president@ (as far as I can tell) go to an alias which
forwards to Ross (and EVP, and possibly someone else), as well as going
to an archived mailbox which I and others can access (not sure if it's
just a group of officers & board, or if this archive is Member access).

Happy for someone from infra to point out the specific technical
details, but no, if we want a fully confidential CoC reporting method,
in my mind president@ is *not* sufficient for the long term.

I would prefer for President, EVP, directors to agree on a single email
alias that is an unarchived alias, with a published list of the specific
ASF Officers or Members that it goes to directly (names to be approved
by President).

"Note the bit about members staffing the alias.  Nothing in common with anything you have
said despite your shoddy reading and argumentation skills. 

    On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:31 PM, Joe Schaefer <>

 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 <> 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
> 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 <> wrote:

 On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer <> 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.


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