www-community mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Abele <e...@codefaktor.de>
Subject Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Date Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:33:45 GMT
I don't want to be an "enthusiasm blocker" but I have to agree with 
what Justin already said. Tetsuya, do you think that the suggested 
split-ups are reducing the amount of bureaucracy we already have in 
ASF-land? If so, can you please be so kind and elaborate further on 
this?

I'd be fine with some sort of Publicity/PR Committee doing the 
newsletter and some marketing stuff but right now I can't think of any 
good reasons which would justify a major overhaul of our infrastructure 
teams (apmail, site, etc.). Do you see something utterly broken here?

Cheers and thanks,
Erik

On 23/10/2003, at 10:50, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> --On Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:44 AM +0900 Tetsuya Kitahata 
> <tetsuya@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> ?? ... press@ can't be found at http://www.apache.org/mail/
>> neither eyebrowse.
>> Where can i find the archive (log), by the way?
>
> press@ is not a public list.  It is the place where PR firms can (and 
> do) contact us.  Yet, the content of those messages are not public 
> information.
>
>> 'Public Relations Committee':
>> 1. website (www.apache.org/ "site" module) maintenance
>> and improvements/suggestions of userfriendliness of each $tlp sites.
>
> I believe the website needs to be ultimately controlled by the 
> infrastructure committee.  We used to have a separate list for doing 
> the 'site' module (site-dev@), but people found it too cumbersome and 
> it was shut down and all discussion was moved back to infrastructure@. 
>  So, we've tried having 'site' split off and that failed.  And, I also 
> believe that each PMC needs to be responsible for their own site.
>
>> 2. press@
>
> AFAICT, press@ is doin' just fine.  I don't see a need to usurp this 
> into a committee.  Plus, the main person to talk to here is Sally.  
> She's pretty much only on press@, AFAIK.
>
>> 3. apache@ (and hidden mail address :-)
>
> AFAIK, Ken Coar is the one who responds to these.  He has, on several 
> occasions, declined offers of assistance - this has been a 
> semi-frequent topic of discussion on infrastructure@, but the outcome 
> has always been the same. Perhaps he'd be willing to change his mind 
> now...
>
>> 4. webmaster@$tlp
>> 5. announcements@$tlp
>
> I think these two represent a poor trend in that they'd move away from 
> TLP control to centralized control.  I can't disagree with that 
> enough.  The PMC needs to responsible for this type of stuff.
>
>> 6. Marketing
>> 7. (Newsletter)
>
> If you want to group these two together, that'd be fine.  Call it 
> 'Publicity'.
>
>> 'Communications Committee':
>> 1. apmail@
>> 2. supervise of XX@$tlp.apache.org lists
>> 3. supervise of XX@apache.org lists (community, committer, announce, 
>> etc.)
>
> Absolutely not.  This is the infrastructure committee's 
> responsibility. Proper operation of the website and mailing lists is 
> the responsibility of that committee.  It currently delegates these 
> responsibilities into root@ and apmail@ participants.  I don't think 
> you've made a compelling argument that the current situation is broken 
> and worth splitting up into new committees.
>
>> 4. Coaching (mentoring?) of developers/committers/members
>
> Perhaps incubator, but I'm not clear what you mean.  -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>


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


Mime
View raw message