On 12/5/19 12:10 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
From the peanut gallery: IMO, without a formal training/certification program, what
even an ASF Member understands about the Apache Way, not to mention committers who are
not members, is up for grabs. It is essentially the party game "telephone"
where one person says something to another person who tries to pass it on.
Also, it is humans speaking and humans listening, so misspeaking and
misunderstanding is guaranteed.
Seems like a better approach is along the lines of what the Events page Shane
linked to contains. It contains a disclaimer for events. I thought we were
supposed to also include a disclaimer in slide decks, but I couldn't find a
reference to that.
IOW, if you require a disclaimer that people speaking about Apache are just
enthusiastic volunteers and not official spokespeople, and have them state how
long they've been with involved at Apache as contributor/committer/member, then
these community groups are the same as anyone else talking about the good
things at Apache at some potluck dinner with friends. It doesn't have to be
100% accurate, it just has to get the word out in a reasonable fashion.
And then you will get good at fixing common misunderstandings and create a FAQ of common
misunderstandings to guide future presentations. "Oh, well that person is
relatively new to the ASF and didn't quite grok that yet. The real story is...."
IMO, better to plan for error recovery than to attempt perfection in the
message.
https://media.tenor.com/images/d85d9f198d6b18d52267ef60314e7220/tenor.gif
(Why not both?!)
Yes, you are right. But there are limits to each approach. Having a
member, or two PMC members, has have been variously suggested, mitigates
the likelihood that we'll in error recovery mode continuously.
I can look at the membership of the Indore ALC, for example, or the
proposed Beijing one, and know with a high degree of certainty that
they're not spreading misinformation.
I want that same degree of certainty every time we hand out the Apache
name to anyone and ask them to go spread the message. That's all I'm
asking for here - a clear "you must be this tall to ride" before we
approve any more of these proposed ALCs.
This must be mixed with flexibility and mentorship for those parts of
there world where there are no local members/PMC members/committers,
since any proposed ALC from those regions represent a clear opportunity
to expand our footprint into new places.
This is also an obvious opportunity to coordinate with the Training
project (incubating) to seed these ALCs with starter
materials/presentations/FAQs. Yay inter-PMC cooperation.
On 12/5/19, 7:53 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2019, at 3:52 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Picking up on one point
>
> On 05/12/2019 05:31, Swapnil M Mane wrote:
>
>> -- To form an ALC, there should be at least 2 committers or 1 ASF
member.
>
> I don't agree with this. I don't think this is acceptable. The bar for
> committership is too low to be used as a test for "Understands the
> Apache Way".
Maybe 2 PMC members...?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
--
Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com
http://rcbowen.com/
@rbowen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
