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=utf-8
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: <3D9F64FC-3062-45D5-B324-0604E4D0D51A@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 19:18:58 -0400
References: <573DD91F.5090001@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> <02316F29-AF1C-413C-AF04-DD19DA4D7042@yahoo.com> <CY1PR03MB2346F5E1F42C8BBF6EF2EFA699440@CY1PR03MB2346.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <8B9B06BF-2234-4369-AE7B-AA877C1C5137@yahoo.com> <CY1PR03MB2346C0D9F81972051E77B71599440@CY1PR03MB2346.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CY1PR03MB2346C6B61953AEEA42248DB799440@CY1PR03MB2346.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <4a11b30f-ec7b-f3a1-a566-e8971121194c@apache.org> <CY1PR03MB2346171AE3EB02C567A3A31299450@CY1PR03MB2346.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <76957362-e51e-90bb-04a6-81a5cc3a3c97@apa
 che.org>
In-Reply-To: <76957362-e51e-90bb-04a6-81a5cc3a3c97@apache.org>
To: dev@community.apache.org
archived-at: Mon, 30 May 2016 23:19:14 -0000

Thanks a bunch Mark!  Daniel can you please set Ross up with a .qmail-rgardl=
er-owner file containing his full apache.org address?  For your convenience t=
here'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:
>=20
>> On 30/05/2016 18:30, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> Yes. Thanks to everyone working this out.
>=20
> Done. Thanks Marvin.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> Mark
>=20
>> 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 Apa=
che Projects?)
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=20
>> Ross,
>>=20
>> 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)?
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Mark
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>=20
>>> 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@communit=
y.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 Ap=
ache Projects?)
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Yes its positive and I've supported it every step, including stating wha=
tever folks decide is best.  I'm just saying that the kind of reporting you h=
ope for is unlikely to materialize.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> 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 Ap=
ache Projects?)
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> 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 th=
e necessity for an ombudsman alias but that has little to do with the benefi=
ts of having a collaborative team of people to deal with this.
>>>=20
>>> Keep in mind Ross that your own expertise in this matter is limited to y=
our 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 lik=
e 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.
>>>=20
>>> 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 direct=
ly 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.
>>>=20
>>> I too have some experiences dealing with other students being sexually h=
arassed by their professors, so I'm not particularly ignorant of the surroun=
ding issues as to why complaints are filed to whom and what sorts of remedie=
s are typically desired.  In my capacity as graduate student representative,=
 despite having a very close relationship with the department chair I never c=
ame 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 a=
sked to confront the professor in question that I was aware of what was goin=
g on with an anonymous person.
>>>=20
>>> What I'm suggesting is that these volunteers discuss directly with the r=
eporters 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 fro=
m the rest of the team.
>>>=20
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>=20
>>>> On May 29, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> w=
rote:
>>>>=20
>>>> I don=E2=80=99t think you=E2=80=99ll see that benefit. Privacy and safe=
ty from repudiation is a critical factor. You don't get that with a group sh=
aring experiences and reports. In some cases I have agreed never to reveal t=
he fact a complaint was made. That=E2=80=99s why I have only provided estima=
ted counts. I don=E2=80=99t want to go back and count (in fact I don=E2=80=99=
t even keep the emails in some cases).
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> I'm not saying a group is bad, more choice is good. All I'm saying is t=
hat the primary goal of this focused activity is to deal with the specifics a=
nd thus extracting generalities in small numbers and non-specific summaries o=
f unique situations is not so helpful.
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> A more important goal, in the foundation rather than individual sense, i=
s to deal with the root cause and make the approach being discussed here unn=
ecessary.
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> 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 A=
pache Projects?)
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Also the reasoning about avoiding one man shows for software projects a=
pplies equally well to our ingress reporting strategy.  Right now the only p=
erson who has acquired any substantial real word experience dealing with suc=
h reports is Ross, and perhaps a few other individuals who have proxied repo=
rts 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 w=
e still consider that a necessity.
>>>>=20
>>>> Hence saddling this responsibility to a small team has all the social a=
dvantages that a collaborative group of developers has over a one man effort=
, from both a survivability standpoint and a performance standpoint.
>>>>=20
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>=20
>>>>> On May 29, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.INVA=
LID> wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> No the president is definitely not part of the problem Niclas.  We're d=
iscussing the delivery mechanism for the most part, as well as reasoning abo=
ut why some people insist on having an officer listed as the "ultimate" repo=
rting mechanism.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> My own experience dealing with sexual harassment reports when I was in=
 graduate school is that the reporters felt more comfortable reporting to pe=
ople like me who had relatively little formality in our power or position, b=
ecause what they were looking for was not a formal reprimand, but simply to h=
ave the misbehavior stopped, without risk of retribution towards the reporte=
r.  The higher you go up the formal ladder, the less likely you will be succ=
essful from the reporter's standpoint in achieving a positive outcome "from t=
heir perspective".   Again it's about what's in the reporter's best interest=
s: sometimes all they want is a shoulder to cry on, and some empathy for the=
ir plight.  If we can positively change the situation for the better that's g=
reat, but it certainly doesn't require a formal title at Apache to achieve t=
hat goal, most of the time.  But when it does, that can always inform the di=
scussion with the ombudsperson instead of being the starting point for a rep=
ort.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 6:17 AM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> w=
rote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Is a president-private@ mail forward out of the question? If the presi=
dent
>>>>> 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.or=
g>
>>>>> 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 t=
o
>>>>>> 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 who=
se
>>>>>> mail servers do strict SPF checks will BOUNCE email from major email
>>>>>> providers who publish such rules, and those bounce mails may wind up b=
eing
>>>>>> DROPPED by Apache's qmail server since it's attempt to deliver the bo=
unce
>>>>>> mail back to the sender may also be REJECTED by the original sending d=
omain.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> That is also a good point.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> All of this leads to problems that, while some are fixable, others a=
re
>>>>>> simply not.
>>>>>>> We need a better strategy, and it should be collaborative rather tha=
n
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> --
>>>>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttp%3a%2f%2fzest=
.apache.org&data=3D01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9759d515c87f4d91=
e6ce08d387ea8d09%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=3D2u6lzVmy3y9p=
rPlnDUvhuaZGEFV%2fOEherBdEsDStByA%3d - New Energy for Java
>=20