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...
Nick
