community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject RE: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)
Date Sun, 29 May 2016 17:52:09 GMT
I think Niclas meant “if the President were part of the complaint”, rather than them being
part of the problem being solved. An unfortunate misunderstanding ??

I do think your points are valid. My experience supports them.

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Joe Schaefer<>
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

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 <> 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?


On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <>

> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Joe Schaefer
> <> 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
- New Energy for Java

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