community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: What's the plan? What are we here for?
Date Wed, 07 Dec 2016 13:01:36 GMT
All I can say is: thumbsup for anyone scratching the itch...

If others feel that the one doing is not doing the right thing, I say: go
scratch...

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com> wrote:

> On 12/06/2016 04:59 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
> > Now, nothing prevents us from clarifying the charter (or going above and
> beyond
> > it)
>
> That's exactly what I was doing.
>
> It's incredibly frustrating to me how hard it is for anyone at the ASF
> to say "let's make this thing better" without a half dozen people
> hearing "this thing is terribly broken and it's your fault."
>
> I'm suggesting that there are ways that we can be more effective in what
> we're doing. I'm making concrete suggestions of what we can do to be
> more effective in fostering stronger community here at the ASF. I feel
> that this falls well within our charter.
>
> > We have been entrusted by the board to do that community development.
> >
> > Perhaps you'll look at it as semantics -- but my read is that we've been
> > entrusted with *coordination* of said community development. So yes:
> > "we drink and we know things" until such a point that a charter gets
> clarified.
>
> The first job of a PMC is to expand on, and clarify, their charter, and
> determine how they're going to accomplish it.
>
> When this PMC was founded, as was often the case in those days, we all
> just knew what it was that we were supposed to be doing, so we never
> wrote it down. Now, 10 years later, we need to write it down.
>
> This doesn't mean that everything is horribly broken. It means that we
> need to refocus.
>
>
> >> No doubt someone will say that this is the Incubator's job. The
> >> Incubator is there to train projects at onboarding.
> >
> > No way! That's just not the case given the IPMC charter. I really
> strongly
> > disagree with you restricting it that way.
>
> Seriously, Roman? Strongly disagree? Again, what is it with people at
> the ASF getting *offended* all the time. This is likely a discussion for
> another thread, but surely it is the case that one of the Incubator's
> many jobs is to teach projects how to operate within the Apache family?
> How is that "restricting"? It's a statement of one of the Incubator's jobs.
>
> >> We are here to
> >> develop community, and encourage projects to continue doing what the
> >> Incubator taught them, and to draw them deeper into the ASF family. In a
> >> sense ComDev picks up where the Incubator leaves off. And then at some
> >> point we hand off to Attic. It's a circle of life thing.
> >
> > See. That's where my problem with your proposal really begins -- the PMC
> is
> > really either ready or not. If it is ready -- it MUST be capable of
> > self-managing.
> > That includes "training the young'uns" and proliferating ASF culture.
> And if PMC
> > needs resources and/or help -- sure there will be ComDev ready to help.
>
> ... and we are not ready to help. Look at the last dozen threads where
> someone says that they need help, or someone says that they want to
> help. We say a few hand-wavey things and they go away, and we've done
> little or nothing to help.
>
> I'm suggesting some concrete programs we could start to make that more
> helpful, and more scalable. So that it's not just 10 of us sitting
> around drinking and knowing things, but that we have a system whereby
> any project has access to the decades of community intelligence we
> represent here, and our culture is preserved for another generation.
>
> >
> > "Apache Way" governance model is appealing precisely because of the same
> reason
> > that US federal model is: there's a non-negotiable culture statement
> > called Constitution.
> > The rest is left up to the states. And yes Feds can create programs to
> > get state's attention
> > (mostly via financial incentives) but other that that states are free
> > to define their own
> > policies (still within what's allowed by the constitution).
> >
> > But ok, you're clearly increasing the charter of ComDev. That's
> > actually fine as long as the
> > principle of PMC independence I stated above holds.
> >
>
> No, I don't think I'm increasing it. I'm defining what it means, in much
> the same way that the constitution doesn't mean anything all by itself,
> but comes to mean practical things by application, expansion, commentary
> and so on. So, yeah, great analogy.
>
> And we'd kind of suck as a comdev pmc if we violated the constitution. I
> think that goes without saying. I think that you know I'm not advocating
> scrapping the constitution. We've both been here for long enough to
> understand that.
>
>
> > ||| * Increase community diversity. Identify projects that are
> monocultures
> > ||| (or near to them) and help them actively pursue broader community
> diversity.
> >
> > If this is -- "hey, we've noticed your community can benefit from
> increased
> > diversity here are some tools to help with that" -- I'm +1. If this is
> > a policing
> > function for the board I'm -1 until that time that policing becomes
> > part of ComDev
> > charter.
>
> Once again, at what point have I said anything about policing? And what
> do you know of me that would suggest to you that I'd even *want* to do
> any policing, much less build a police force.
>
> Yes, of course I mean help projects to improve.
>
> <snip more of the same>
>
> I see that once again I have communicated poorly. I honestly didn't
> think that what I was saying was either complicated or controversial. I
> do realize that *everything* seems to become controversial at the ASF,
> and everything is seen as "everything is broken and it's your fault."
>
> Evidently I need to just, as you say, lead by example, as Sharan is
> doing so eloquently, and not try to talk about what I'm trying to
> accomplish.
>
> It really does make me sad that whenever I say "let's make this thing
> better" I get shouted down by people who say "it's wonderful already and
> who are you to tell us it's broken."
>
> I'm not saying anything is broken. I'm not saying that everyone here is
> awful, incompetent, and lazy. I'm saying that we can do our job a whole
> lot better. We have projects that may have been ready when they
> graduated, but are now floating alone in the ocean. We are not "barging
> in" when we offer them a ride back to shore.
>
> What's especially irritating is that you appear to agree with everything
> I said in my initial email. Every single one of them. But you also seem
> to think that I want to build a police force, and I just can't figure
> out where you got that notion from.
>
> I guess I'm done talking. I'm going to do some things. Folks can play
> along if they want, but I'm apparently terrible at talking about it. So
> I'll just do.
>
> Y'all have a great week.
>
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
>
>

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