community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <>
Subject Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)
Date Sat, 28 May 2016 04:44:44 GMT
If you can find all the same detailed explanations that Shane has provided
in your paragraph simply saying "because I believe we still archive the
president@ alias" I'll buy you a beer.

Also, Joe, I'm sorry to say that -- but I do find your writing style *very*
difficult to follow when it comes to details.


On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Joe Schaefer <> wrote:
> 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 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 <>
> 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.
> Thanks,
> Roman.

View raw message