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 Fri, 27 May 2016 00:20:50 GMT
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?
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.
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.


    On Thursday, May 26, 2016 7:36 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
 

 On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> Roman Shaposhnik wrote on 5/26/16 6:20 PM:
> ...
>> Before I answer that question, lets clarify something:
>>
>>> *  Keep the current mechanism (report to the archived alias president@apache)
>>>    but change the CoC text to indicate that reporting is not confidential.
>>
>> My understanding from the explanation Ross gave me was that reports to
>> president@a.o were strictly confidential (which in my mind also translated into
>> lack of archives). Ross, can you please elaborate on this?
>
> 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).

This is horrible. Not you, Shane, of course, but rather my understanding
of what it does.

> 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).

That is exactly my preference as well.

Marvin, at this point what I'm about to ask of you is grossly unfair (since
your proposal, apparently doesn't really make anything worse) but would
you consider the above statement by Shane to be your course of action?

Thanks,
Roman.


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