www-community mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com>
Subject Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Date Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:58:00 GMT
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 12:11:16PM +0900, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
> keen eyes to exact infrastructural issues and "not to omit important
> mails coming to infra@ and root@".

I'm sorry, but what emails have been omitted?  Please don't ascribe to
malice what can be explained by lack of time.  The people on the other
side of the curtain are human beings (and unpaid volunteers at that).
So, if you don't receive a response, it'd be helpful to resend any
messages.  Regardless of what some people think, we're not completely
evil bastards.

> As for mailing lists maintainance, I think "Communication" Committee
> would fit to that task as well as infrastructure committee.
> AAMOF, when I subscribed to some mailing lists, I got stunned
> at seeing the fact that some mailing lists accepted spam mails.

At one time, I believe this was *intentional* when it was created.  All
postings were supposed to go through.  Now, with the amount of spam,
it's possible that wasn't the greatest of ideas.  Has anyone sent email
to apmail@ asking for it to be changed?  (Realize that few apmail@
people read community@.)

> what I often see at the new mailing lists are the omit of 
> "Reply-To:" Header. I do not think it would be acceptable
> diversity. "Communication" Committee can establish such a policy.

There are *lots* of reasons not to set the Reply-To header (aka Reply-To
munging).  The current ASF policy is to let each mailing list decide if
it should be set.  I think you want to centralize policy across the ASF
for things that need not be centralized.

I really believe that the participants on the project should set the
policy.  They can ask for recommendations, sure.  But, infrastructure@
has taken the policy on some things to *not* set policy.  The
responsibility that comes with 'power' (such as it is) is to know when
not to wield it.

> Maintanance of "site" is not "infrastructural" one. Rather, public
> relations. Establishing webmaster@apache.org and FWing the mails
> coming to such address to PR committee would suffice. The same goes
> for apache@apache

Again, you've overlooked the statement that infrastructure@ has asked on
several occassions for these to be forwarded to a group and it was
rejected each time.  Have you bothered to ask the person who is running
apache@apache.org and webmaster@apache.org if they want to share?  Every
time we've asked, we've gotten a very strong no.

I disagree that there is such a clamor to maintain 'site' that it needs
a separate committee on its own.  All ASF members already have access by
default, and karma can be granted upon demand if you ask nicely.

> For example, see http://maven.apache.org/ Anyone would think that
> maven is now under "jakarta" (see the logo).  I do not think such
> impressions would be good for the asf as a whole.  Who would watch
> these kinds of things? .... infrastructure? .. NO, PR committee.

Uh, the Maven PMC?  The board or infrastructure or any committee
shouldn't be telling Maven what's good for them.  The people who
contribute to Maven get the ability to design their website.

The only responsibility of the board is to make sure there isn't
anything that legally endangers the ASF, and infrastructure makes sure
the server is serving pages correctly.  But, the content is solely the
responsibility of Maven PMC and its committers.

> PR and Communication committees should keep good relations with each
> committers/members/developers. The ultimate goal would be
> "improvements of (user|member|committer|developer)-friendliness"

And, let me ask a more pivotal question:

Who is going to staff this committee?

Do you really think that there is a great untapped resource that hasn't
been found of people willing to do this?  If so, what is preventing them
from doing these tasks already?

My answers are: no and nothing.

I honestly don't see a need to create more overhead.  The committees we
already have are under-represented anyway.  -- justin

To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org

View raw message