Mailing-List: contact dev-help@community.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@community.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: shaposhnik@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <1653616315.582951.1464402692655.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.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>
	<845456266.67759.1464308450123.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<CA+ULb+uEfnj9U+zJRra9yU41CmAB1NoY9K2WjVxSXdrROdew7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<938443510.584952.1464402049145.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
	<CA+ULb+tnXvTLyCqDCvgyiELYduiC-LPrq7o8uMcLU=L9T8sG3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1653616315.582951.1464402692655.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 21:44:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+ULb+u2TmcEC4qxGA6-AHQ-g9qJfHnDs0NU-VJcGrrbVHPCDg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)
From: Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Cc: ComDev <dev@community.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
archived-at: Sat, 28 May 2016 04:44:51 -0000

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.

Thanks,
Roman.

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> 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 <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
> 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 <roman@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
> 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.
>
>