All I can say is: thumbsup for anyone scratching the itch... If others feel that the one doing is not doing the right thing, I say: go scratch...
Best regards, Pierre Smits ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> OFBiz based solutions & services OFBiz Extensions Marketplace http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > 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 > >
