www-apachecon-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alasdair Nottingham <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: How public is public?
Date Wed, 25 May 2011 20:21:24 GMT
On 25 May 2011 18:19, Nick Burch <nick.burch@alfresco.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> How many things do we do to plan/program/organize/partner?
>> * Big ApacheCon (all PMC's 'invited', open to the public)
>> * Small 1-x project focused events (partners in programming, usually)
>>  including community-wide meetups (open to the public)
>> * ASF 'presence' at non-Apache events (usually a handful of people)
>> * Retreats, including dev meets/hackathons (for 'contributors')
>> * Apache BarCamp (public, often co-located, sometimes stand-alone)
>> The third should be handled on the committee-internal list; only some
>> of the events we are invited to would agree with public discussion of
>> 'their event'.  It could be treated in the same category as the second
>> item, if a specific "foo Project Track" or "ASF Track" was agreed upon.
> I'd agree with that one
>> The other four each seem like they deserve their own perpetual
>> discussion list open to all contributors (eg; public).
> Do we really want 4 different lists? I'm worried about having too many lists
> and the effect it may have on building a community, and that's been raised
> by a few others (mostly on the concom@ discussion).
> Maybe one solution is to have two public lists for those interested in
> discussing and organising events, one for the larger and one for the smaller
> events. When an event is ready to kick off detailed planning, then likely
> they'll fork off to their own planners list (which may well not be an ASF
> one). I had thought that the small events one would co-exist on concom@, but
> maybe you're right and it should be public
> One question though is on approval for events - where would this happen?
> Especially for small events that are seeking a budget, should that be on the
> open list or something like concom@? I'm torn here, I'm not sure about doing
> that on an open list (in the way that lots of PMCs do committer votes in
> private). However, most proposals change slightly and get some good feedback
> in the approval step, and that feels to me like the feedback/comment bits
> should be on the list that the proposal is worked up on. Hmm...

Could you follow an incubator style model. Have the discussion in
public and have a public vote, then the proposal get sent to concom
for agreement/veto?

> Nick

Alasdair Nottingham

View raw message