On 25 May 2011 18:19, Nick Burch <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
