> The original word used was “allowed”. I think the actors are not just “allowed” to redact PII when publishing, they “should” redact it instead.
:) On Sun, Dec 7, 2025 at 2:39 PM Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > What do you mean :) ? Could you elaborate please Wei? > > The original word used was “allowed”. I think the actors are not just > “allowed” to redact PII when publishing, they “should” redact it instead. > > Best, > Wei > > > On Dec 7, 2025, at 7:38 PM, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Just say "within 2 months" to be more explicit. > > > > Indeed. > > > >> Also, I think we "should" redact PII instead. > > > > What do you mean :) ? Could you elaborate please Wei? > > > > I think we need to be very precise here. Privacy is important for the > ASF - > > for example recently CSP (Content Security Policy) have been made a lot > > stricter by the ASF and we had to remove some of the links to external > > parties (youtube videos now are strictly "click to play" and youtube > > thumbnails are downloaded now from our site to protect privacy. And for > > example it is impossible to embed (I just tried with release calendar) > for > > example Google Calendar in a wiki page hosted at cwiki.apache.org - > mostly > > because ASF does not want to "force" people into their data being > gathered > > by 3rd-parties by **just** looking at ASF pages. > > > > My understanding is that this is really a requirement that the PII data > is > > only gathered to protect the survey from being abused and nothing else > and > > we won't even see it (neither whoever runs the survey will collect them > for > > other purposes than fraudulent mis-use detection and protection. The PII > > are very hard to not get on incoming requests - for example full client > IP > > address is considered PII) and you will **get** it when someone makes a > > request, you also need to use it in case you have spam or AI slop to > filter > > out obvious mis-use. And to be honest we as PMC don't even want to deal > > with it. Also, we might ask the privacy team of ASF to review the survey > > setup before it is run in case there is no suitable ASF infrastructure > > solution. > > > >> Does this imply the PMC should have a call for sponsors before the end > of > > the calendar year? > > > > Might be a good idea to indeed formalise the calendar? > > Yep I think it's a good idea to announce we want to run it and ask for > > potential sponsors. Say June - open it up with September to run it - > > November to finish and January next year to announce results ? > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 7, 2025 at 6:12 AM Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> + 1 binding > >> > >> A few nitpicks and questions > >> > >>> * The full, raw results for the survey should be published in full > >> each year for the entire community to read and benefit from. Publish > >> must be timely within 1-2 months after closure. The only > >> scrubbing/redacting allowed is of PII data or obvious fraudulent > >> answers. > >> > >> Just say "within 2 months" to be more explicit. Also, I think we > "should" > >> redact PII instead. > >> > >>> * If any entity wants to support/sponsor the survey and take the cost > >> connected with running, processing the survey - we will welcome such > >> sponsorship. This needs to be an explicit request after a call for > >> sponsors to the PMC and PMC has to approve it > >> > >> Does this imply the PMC should have a call for sponsors before the end > of > >> the calendar year? > >> > >> > >> Best, > >> Wei > >> > >>> On Dec 7, 2025, at 1:03 AM, Shahar Epstein <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> +1 binding - I think that these principles should be visible in the > wiki > >> :) > >>> > >>> > >>> Shahar > >>> > >>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2025, 00:09 Jens Scheffler <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi everyone, > >>>> > >>>> It has been pointed out that the way we run our yearly community > survey > >>>> happens by inertia, without any formality to it. Now while I’m never > one > >>>> for too much formality, some here would be helpful. > >>>> We discussed it in the Airflow PMC and with the outcome we now raise a > >>>> vote on the devlist in public. Proposal is we formally accept the > >>>> following: > >>>> > >>>> * A yearly Airflow Community survey should be run, and it should run > >>>> proximate to the end of the calendar year. > >>>> * The intent of this survey is to understand the use of the software > >>>> and features used in order to understand where to focus future > >>>> development on and which features might be deprecated. But not > >>>> limited to. We are also interested in perceived quality and biggest > >>>> problems for which we even might need to elaborate a solution space. > >>>> * The questions for which are discussed on the dev list. We should > >>>> have a final lazy consensus to the dev list (or vote if we don’t see > >>>> consensus) on the questions before the survey is published. No > >>>> formal vote is required before finalising the questions or starting > >>>> the survey. It would be good to keep a majority of questions stable > >>>> such that we can see changes year-over-year. > >>>> * Questions must not involve collecting PII data. One exception is the > >>>> optional collecting of email addresses for delivering sponsor > >>>> incentives (i.e. training course, credits. See further on in this > >>>> document) > >>>> * There is no formal position or person responsible for generating the > >>>> questions. As with everything ASF related, all individuals are given > >>>> the opportunity to participate, but their influence is based on > >>>> publicly earned merit. > >>>> * The PMC will promote the survey via airflow.apache.org website - > >>>> including the banners on the website, and Apache Airflow Social > >>>> Media, Slack and similar channels. > >>>> * The survey should be conducted in a way such that not one person or > >>>> company gets more information than the others. > >>>> * The results should be processed/analysed and a summary published on > >>>> the Airflow website (and thus subject to normal PR review process by > >>>> committers and the PMC). > >>>> * The full, raw results for the survey should be published in full > >>>> each year for the entire community to read and benefit from. Publish > >>>> must be timely within 1-2 months after closure. The only > >>>> scrubbing/redacting allowed is of PII data or obvious fraudulent > >>>> answers. > >>>> * In case there is no appropriate survey platform run by the ASF > >>>> available for under the “apache.org” URL, the entity or people > >>>> running the survey will be free to host it elsewhere. > >>>> * If any entity wants to support/sponsor the survey and take the cost > >>>> connected with running, processing the survey - we will welcome such > >>>> sponsorship. This needs to be an explicit request after a call for > >>>> sponsors to the PMC and PMC has to approve it. We will also leave > >>>> freedom for the entity running the survey in the way to attract wide > >>>> audience (for example offering credits or free products as long as > >>>> they do not suggest being PMC endorsed; and to refer Apache Airflow > >>>> according to the nominative fair use. > >>>> * In cases of such sponsorship, the entity will be listed as sponsor > >>>> permanently in the published Survey results - this is in accordance > >>>> with the targeted-sponsorship policy of the ASF. We will inform > >>>> Fundraising of the ASF about this being a formal targeted > >>>> sponsorship by the PMC. > >>>> > >>>> This is just writing down what we do already (with the exception of > the > >>>> last two points which are a new addition and a more formal approach to > >>>> the ad-hoc basis right now). > >>>> > >>>> Jens on behalf of the Airflow PMC. > >>>> > >>>> This email is calling a vote for the procedure, which will last for 5 > >>>> days - which means that it will end on December 8th, 2025 22:00 UTC. > >>>> Everyone is encouraged to vote, although only PMC members and > >>>> Committer's votes are considered binding. Members of the community are > >>>> encouraged to vote with "(non-binding)". > >>>> > >>>> Consider this my +1 (binding) vote. > >>>> > >>>> Please vote accordingly: > >>>> > >>>> [ ] +1 approve > >>>> [ ] +0 no opinion > >>>> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason > >>>> > >> > >> > >
