Mailing-List: contact dev-help@community.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@community.apache.org
From: Joseph Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)
Message-Id: <02316F29-AF1C-413C-AF04-DD19DA4D7042@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 13:56:11 -0400
References: <573DD91F.5090001@gmail.com> <CY1PR03MB2346F1C21DD4E2A425334BC1994A0@CY1PR03MB2346.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CY1PR03MB234620109CF665D959057923994D0@CY1PR03MB2346.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <5742295D.9020209@apache.org> <845617835.881421.1464014814263.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <CAEWfVJmBYMuAV+vYOpugasST9ZEuZY4yU9rS9S7y=9QVX2Oo2w@mail.gmail.com> <CAAS6=7g8qDVY=YtdXK1nTDubuFx_g+i__E+3wL+bXKzQyob2+w@mail.gmail.com> <1985233634.692714.1464228965387.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <CA+ULb+uj0_JHJ31UCqnZb+ihtmFMwm1vLXq8eeJK3vVPpqCQ3g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+ULb+uw+6tSvXU=foSuofuV=ex_OiCXEtDbECFnRrocJ7=Dnw@mail.gmail.com> <CAAS6=7icrkfqygbipfTkddhKWpfv1u32S4tWq6jRwT9w+-U44A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+ULb+uO9ObyXahi3m=eEVkscWc0TFSoVV16yOUZhUJ9uehJ4g@mail.gmail.com> <76c11791-b314-0c58-558f-c49d68a84d52@shanecurcuru.org> <CA+ULb+vGDDAkDZEG-01j7FRZwtPW6Q144moeqigDziFhjY7i7g@mail.gmail.com> <845456266.67759.1464308450123.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <CA+ULb+uEfnj9U+zJRra9yU41CmAB1NoY9K2
  WjVxSXdrROdew7Q@mail.gmail.com> <CADmm+Ke8q_wZLTGQrmSHCa1ySMu8y1ad3xC6hpeZ4=c7exQWvg@mail.gmail.com> <BAC3A200-AD7E-4D17-847E-B2146395B1F7@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <BAC3A200-AD7E-4D17-847E-B2146395B1F7@yahoo.com>
To: dev@community.apache.org
archived-at: Sun, 29 May 2016 17:56:25 -0000

Also the reasoning about avoiding one man shows for software projects applie=
s equally well to our ingress reporting strategy.  Right now the only person=
 who has acquired any substantial real word experience dealing with such rep=
orts is Ross, and perhaps a few other individuals who have proxied reports t=
o 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 st=
ill consider that a necessity.

Hence saddling this responsibility to a small team has all the social advant=
ages that a collaborative group of developers has over a one man effort, fro=
m 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:
>=20
> No the president is definitely not part of the problem Niclas.  We're disc=
ussing the delivery mechanism for the most part, as well as reasoning about w=
hy some people insist on having an officer listed as the "ultimate" reportin=
g mechanism.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> My own experience dealing with sexual harassment reports when I was in gra=
duate school is that the reporters felt more comfortable reporting to people=
 like me who had relatively little formality in our power or position, becau=
se 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 success=
ful from the reporter's standpoint in achieving a positive outcome "from the=
ir 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 gr=
eat, but it certainly doesn't require a formal title at Apache to achieve th=
at goal, most of the time.  But when it does, that can always inform the dis=
cussion with the ombudsperson instead of being the starting point for a repo=
rt.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 6:17 AM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote=
:
>=20
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> Niclas
>=20
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>=20
>> 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?
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>>> 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 bein=
g
>> 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 doma=
in.
>>=20
>> That is also a good point.
>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>=20
>=20
>=20