What's the problem with reaching out to the dev@ ? This is a great thing to do.
I keep on explaining people when they reach me (or anyone else) directly for help in any subject in Airflow that they are doing it wrong for three reasons: 1) they do not let others, who feel like and are able to help them, to answer, effectively limiting their own options 2) they demand exclusive attention from those they reach out to directly (and the people reached out to can be sick, unavailable, busy, have no time, take vacations), by reaching them directly you put a pressure on them - you should be aware of that. 3) they do not let anyone else to learn from their reaching out because it is done in private This is IMHO, wrong on basically all levels where community is there. I think people should learn more to ask publicly for help. Doing so is not a sign of weakness, it's a sign for maturity - you are mature enough to know that you do not know things and reach out to a wider audience for help. It also forces you to specify precisely what you ask for and this is great. J. On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 9:07 PM Geertjan Wielenga <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: > I’d love to know who the specific people are that I should reach out to per > Apache project to discuss collaboration around events, promotions of our > projects, etc. > > If the answer to the above is “write to their mailing list” or “everyone”, > etc, then no that’s not what I mean. > > Without a single point of advocacy contact per project, which would be 100% > different to the current fragmented state, we will continue in the same way > as before in the current fragmented state. > > Also happy to do this outside Apache if needed, e.g., Foojay.io which I am > heavily involved in, but ideally we could achieve this within Apache and, > no, not within current structures etc etc etc, but in a new way, please. > > Gj > > > On Fri, 13 May 2022 at 19:44, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > Speaking of being ambassador - very much yes to do it, very much no to > > "official status" of being one (since I was called by Rich). > > IMHO. You are an ambassador or "evangelist" because you do it not because > > you have a "title" to do it. There is absolutely no benefit or > entitlement > > of being appointed as an ambassador. > > If you do it, and do it well, you will be known as an ambassador. What > else > > is needed? Why do you need a title? > > > > J. > > >
