Mailing-List: contact dev-help@community.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@community.apache.org
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 00:20:50 +0000 (UTC)
From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Reply-To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
To: "dev@community.apache.org" <dev@community.apache.org>
Message-ID: <845456266.67759.1464308450123.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+ULb+vGDDAkDZEG-01j7FRZwtPW6Q144moeqigDziFhjY7i7g@mail.gmail.com>
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>
Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache
 Projects?)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_67758_1781939508.1464308450120"
archived-at: Fri, 27 May 2016 00:21:06 -0000

------=_Part_67758_1781939508.1464308450120
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Roman,
I've been beating the archiving problem with president@ like a dead horse f=
or 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 m=
eans any addresses listed in that alias that go to domains whose mail serve=
rs do strict SPF checks will BOUNCE email from major email providers who pu=
blish such rules, and those bounce mails may wind up being DROPPED by Apach=
e'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 simp=
ly not. =C2=A0We need a better strategy, and it should be collaborative rat=
her than dictatorial.


    On Thursday, May 26, 2016 7:36 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.o=
rg> wrote:
=20

 On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org> wrot=
e:
> Roman Shaposhnik wrote on 5/26/16 6:20 PM:
> ...
>> Before I answer that question, lets clarify something:
>>
>>> *=C2=A0 Keep the current mechanism (report to the archived alias presid=
ent@apache)
>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 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 translat=
ed 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.


------=_Part_67758_1781939508.1464308450120--