community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joseph Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)
Date Mon, 30 May 2016 23:18:58 GMT
Thanks a bunch Mark!  Daniel can you please set Ross up with a .qmail-rgardler-owner file containing
his full apache.org address?  For your convenience there's a custom script in ~apmail/bin
on Hermes for this task.

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 30, 2016, at 2:55 PM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 30/05/2016 18:30, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> Yes. Thanks to everyone working this out.
> 
> Done. Thanks Marvin.
> 
> The next step is to expand the list of contacts. The call for volunteers
> was made on the private members@ mailing list so, in keeping with the
> ASF policy of not copying information from a private list to a public
> one, I won't list those volunteers here. What I will do is pass the list
> to Ross for him to review. Once reviewed, I'll check with each of the
> volunteers to make sure they are happy being listed as a PoC and, if
> they are, get them added.
> 
> It was suggested that each listed volunteer should include a link to a
> picture and a brief bio. Any concerns or objections? If not, can I
> suggest that the volunteers create
> https://home.apache.org/~availid/coc.html and we link to that?
> 
> Mark
> 
>> From: Mark Thomas<mailto:markt@apache.org>
>> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 1:53 AM
>> To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 29/05/2016 23:07, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> For the record I do have training in counselling. Its fairly lightweight and
basically boils down to knowing how to respond and when to escalate to a specialist.
>> 
>> Ross,
>> 
>> There looks to be general agreement that archiving abuse reports is a
>> bad idea. On the grounds that handling these is a president@ function,
>> are you happy for Marvin's patch to be applied where you are listed with
>> your @a.o email as the only volunteer (and a note that the list is
>> expected to be expanded shortly)?
>> 
>> Assuming you are OK with this, we can get this done and then discuss
>> expanding that list of volunteers and some of the other improvements
>> that have been suggested.
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>> 
>>> From: Ross Gardler<mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 3:06 PM
>>> To: Joseph Schaefer<mailto:joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.INVALID>; dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org>
>>> Cc: Joseph Schaefer<mailto:joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.INVALID>
>>> Subject: RE: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache
Projects?)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes its positive and I've supported it every step, including stating whatever
folks decide is best.  I'm just saying that the kind of reporting you hope for is unlikely
to materialize.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Joseph Schaefer<mailto:joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.INVALID>
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 12:03 PM
>>> To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org>
>>> Cc: Joseph Schaefer<mailto:joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.INVALID>
>>> Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache
Projects?)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So whittling down the access to this information from 600 odd members to a handful
of people isn't a positive step Ross?  We can certainly debate the necessity for an ombudsman
alias but that has little to do with the benefits of having a collaborative team of people
to deal with this.
>>> 
>>> Keep in mind Ross that your own expertise in this matter is limited to your own
direct experiences- we as an org have absolutely no insight into how well you have done in
this capacity.  Again we should look at the facts like retainment and satisfaction of the
reporter- what we're doing isn't enough if the person just winds up walking away from the
asf post hoc.
>>> 
>>> The org has not paid for your training in this matter, and your business training
from dealing with sexual harassment issues at work does not directly translate because there
are no employees here at the asf.  Trust me, I've sat through those same dull meetings myself-
it's more about what not to do to avoid a federal case being filed against the company.
>>> 
>>> I too have some experiences dealing with other students being sexually harassed
by their professors, so I'm not particularly ignorant of the surrounding issues as to why
complaints are filed to whom and what sorts of remedies are typically desired.  In my capacity
as graduate student representative, despite having a very close relationship with the department
chair I never came across a reporter willing to authorize me to share their report with the
chair.  They always wanted to keep it informal and low key- at best I was asked to confront
the professor in question that I was aware of what was going on with an anonymous person.
>>> 
>>> What I'm suggesting is that these volunteers discuss directly with the reporters
the options available, and that includes every level of escalation, even to other ombudsman.
 This doesn't seem particularly difficult to grasp, and allows a less experienced volunteer
to usher in advice and support from the rest of the team.
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On May 29, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com>
wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I don’t think you’ll see that benefit. Privacy and safety from repudiation
is a critical factor. You don't get that with a group sharing experiences and reports. In
some cases I have agreed never to reveal the fact a complaint was made. That’s why I have
only provided estimated counts. I don’t want to go back and count (in fact I don’t even
keep the emails in some cases).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not saying a group is bad, more choice is good. All I'm saying is that
the primary goal of this focused activity is to deal with the specifics and thus extracting
generalities in small numbers and non-specific summaries of unique situations is not so helpful.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> A more important goal, in the foundation rather than individual sense, is
to deal with the root cause and make the approach being discussed here unnecessary.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: Joseph Schaefer<mailto:joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.INVALID>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 10:56 AM
>>>> To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache
Projects?)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Also the reasoning about avoiding one man shows for software projects applies
equally well to our ingress reporting strategy.  Right now the only person who has acquired
any substantial real word experience dealing with such reports is Ross, and perhaps a few
other individuals who have proxied reports to him on behalf of another.  Ross won't be president
forever, and hence won't be the perpetual ultimate point of contact for abuse reports, should
we still consider that a necessity.
>>>> 
>>>> Hence saddling this responsibility to a small team has all the social advantages
that a collaborative group of developers has over a one man effort, from both a survivability
standpoint and a performance standpoint.
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>>> On May 29, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.INVALID>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> No the president is definitely not part of the problem Niclas.  We're
discussing the delivery mechanism for the most part, as well as reasoning about why some people
insist on having an officer listed as the "ultimate" reporting mechanism.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> My own experience dealing with sexual harassment reports when I was in
graduate school is that the reporters felt more comfortable reporting to people like me who
had relatively little formality in our power or position, because what they were looking for
was not a formal reprimand, but simply to have the misbehavior stopped, without risk of retribution
towards the reporter.  The higher you go up the formal ladder, the less likely you will be
successful from the reporter's standpoint in achieving a positive outcome "from their perspective".
  Again it's about what's in the reporter's best interests: sometimes all they want is a shoulder
to cry on, and some empathy for their plight.  If we can positively change the situation for
the better that's great, but it certainly doesn't require a formal title at Apache to achieve
that goal, most of the time.  But when it does, that can always inform the discussion with
the ombudsperson instead of being the starting point for a report.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 6:17 AM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is a president-private@ mail forward out of the question? If the president
>>>>> is part of the problem, then inform to send to board-private@ instead?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Niclas
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>>>>> <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> Roman,
>>>>>>> I've been beating the archiving problem with president@ like
a dead
>>>>>> horse for the past week- what
>>>>>>> on earth have you been reading to avoid that reality?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Archiving per se is not a problem. If the archive is only available
to
>>>>>> the board I'm border line ok with that.
>>>>>> What I didn't know (and it didn't come up in your emails) is that
>>>>>> there could be other folks having access
>>>>>> to the content of president@ who may or may not be on the board.
>>>>>> That's a big, huge problem.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Furthermore, I doubt president@ has an associated qmail owner
file,
>>>>>> which means any addresses listed in that alias that go to domains
whose
>>>>>> mail servers do strict SPF checks will BOUNCE email from major email
>>>>>> providers who publish such rules, and those bounce mails may wind
up being
>>>>>> DROPPED by Apache's qmail server since it's attempt to deliver the
bounce
>>>>>> mail back to the sender may also be REJECTED by the original sending
domain.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That is also a good point.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> All of this leads to problems that, while some are fixable, others
are
>>>>>> simply not.
>>>>>>> We need a better strategy, and it should be collaborative rather
than
>>>>>> dictatorial.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Not sure what you mean, but as I said ideally I'd like it to be an
>>>>>> alias for an officer
>>>>>> appointed by the board. That's my MVP. What Shane suggested builds
up on
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> and may provide an even better solution.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Roman.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fzest.apache.org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9759d515c87f4d91e6ce08d387ea8d09%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2u6lzVmy3y9prPlnDUvhuaZGEFV%2fOEherBdEsDStByA%3d
- New Energy for Java
> 


Mime
View raw message