On 12/06/2016 04:59 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > Now, nothing prevents us from clarifying the charter (or going above and > beyond > it)
That's exactly what I was doing. It's incredibly frustrating to me how hard it is for anyone at the ASF to say "let's make this thing better" without a half dozen people hearing "this thing is terribly broken and it's your fault." I'm suggesting that there are ways that we can be more effective in what we're doing. I'm making concrete suggestions of what we can do to be more effective in fostering stronger community here at the ASF. I feel that this falls well within our charter. > We have been entrusted by the board to do that community development. > > Perhaps you'll look at it as semantics -- but my read is that we've been > entrusted with *coordination* of said community development. So yes: > "we drink and we know things" until such a point that a charter gets > clarified. The first job of a PMC is to expand on, and clarify, their charter, and determine how they're going to accomplish it. When this PMC was founded, as was often the case in those days, we all just knew what it was that we were supposed to be doing, so we never wrote it down. Now, 10 years later, we need to write it down. This doesn't mean that everything is horribly broken. It means that we need to refocus. >> No doubt someone will say that this is the Incubator's job. The >> Incubator is there to train projects at onboarding. > > No way! That's just not the case given the IPMC charter. I really strongly > disagree with you restricting it that way. Seriously, Roman? Strongly disagree? Again, what is it with people at the ASF getting *offended* all the time. This is likely a discussion for another thread, but surely it is the case that one of the Incubator's many jobs is to teach projects how to operate within the Apache family? How is that "restricting"? It's a statement of one of the Incubator's jobs. >> We are here to >> develop community, and encourage projects to continue doing what the >> Incubator taught them, and to draw them deeper into the ASF family. In a >> sense ComDev picks up where the Incubator leaves off. And then at some >> point we hand off to Attic. It's a circle of life thing. > > See. That's where my problem with your proposal really begins -- the PMC is > really either ready or not. If it is ready -- it MUST be capable of > self-managing. > That includes "training the young'uns" and proliferating ASF culture. And if > PMC > needs resources and/or help -- sure there will be ComDev ready to help. ... and we are not ready to help. Look at the last dozen threads where someone says that they need help, or someone says that they want to help. We say a few hand-wavey things and they go away, and we've done little or nothing to help. I'm suggesting some concrete programs we could start to make that more helpful, and more scalable. So that it's not just 10 of us sitting around drinking and knowing things, but that we have a system whereby any project has access to the decades of community intelligence we represent here, and our culture is preserved for another generation. > > "Apache Way" governance model is appealing precisely because of the same > reason > that US federal model is: there's a non-negotiable culture statement > called Constitution. > The rest is left up to the states. And yes Feds can create programs to > get state's attention > (mostly via financial incentives) but other that that states are free > to define their own > policies (still within what's allowed by the constitution). > > But ok, you're clearly increasing the charter of ComDev. That's > actually fine as long as the > principle of PMC independence I stated above holds. > No, I don't think I'm increasing it. I'm defining what it means, in much the same way that the constitution doesn't mean anything all by itself, but comes to mean practical things by application, expansion, commentary and so on. So, yeah, great analogy. And we'd kind of suck as a comdev pmc if we violated the constitution. I think that goes without saying. I think that you know I'm not advocating scrapping the constitution. We've both been here for long enough to understand that. > ||| * Increase community diversity. Identify projects that are monocultures > ||| (or near to them) and help them actively pursue broader community > diversity. > > If this is -- "hey, we've noticed your community can benefit from increased > diversity here are some tools to help with that" -- I'm +1. If this is > a policing > function for the board I'm -1 until that time that policing becomes > part of ComDev > charter. Once again, at what point have I said anything about policing? And what do you know of me that would suggest to you that I'd even *want* to do any policing, much less build a police force. Yes, of course I mean help projects to improve. <snip more of the same> I see that once again I have communicated poorly. I honestly didn't think that what I was saying was either complicated or controversial. I do realize that *everything* seems to become controversial at the ASF, and everything is seen as "everything is broken and it's your fault." Evidently I need to just, as you say, lead by example, as Sharan is doing so eloquently, and not try to talk about what I'm trying to accomplish. It really does make me sad that whenever I say "let's make this thing better" I get shouted down by people who say "it's wonderful already and who are you to tell us it's broken." I'm not saying anything is broken. I'm not saying that everyone here is awful, incompetent, and lazy. I'm saying that we can do our job a whole lot better. We have projects that may have been ready when they graduated, but are now floating alone in the ocean. We are not "barging in" when we offer them a ride back to shore. What's especially irritating is that you appear to agree with everything I said in my initial email. Every single one of them. But you also seem to think that I want to build a police force, and I just can't figure out where you got that notion from. I guess I'm done talking. I'm going to do some things. Folks can play along if they want, but I'm apparently terrible at talking about it. So I'll just do. Y'all have a great week. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
