Some responses/thoughts inline. Thank you, Swapnil, for your
constructive engagement in this conversation. I *hugely* appreciate you
taking on this initiative, and your willingness to hear, and respond
professionally to, criticism.
On 12/5/19 12:31 AM, Swapnil M Mane wrote:
Thank you all for your constant support and guidance in the ALC [1] initiative.
Thank you so much Rich, Daniel, Issac, Shane, and David for spending
time and energy to share your
thoughts, we highly appreciate it. All the points you mentioned are
very important.
Dear team,
I would like to discuss with you on three critical points (raised by
Rich), here is the reference to mail threads (
https://s.apache.org/6hfel , https://s.apache.org/wr6ah )
1. Process of forming ALC Chapter.
2. How we make sure that we are not having people use the Apache name
to promote messages that are not *our* message.
3. Rules and regulations for ALC Chapter.
I am having some proposals to address these issues and need your kind
help in validating and improving it. All the below are just my
thoughts and I need your kind inputs and approval on this.
## 1. Process of forming ALC Chapter.
Currently, we have process to establish an ALC is, simply send mail on
ComDev list as mentioned at https://s.apache.org/apply-to-setup-alc
Should we add the following clauses to it?
-- Instead of sending mail on dev@community.apache.org, the mail
should be sent to ComDev PMC at priv...@community.apache.org
-- To form an ALC, there should be at least 2 committers or 1 ASF member.
-- The ComDev PMC will look into each request and then took
the decision on forming the ALC Chapter.
-- Also as Rich suggests above, we can also assign one mentor to guide ALC.
(Thank you @Issac & @David for sharing your thoughts on this point).
I kind of like the transparency of sending the request to the public
list. We have already seen how this brings additional
participants/attendees to light.
I believe (and we might want to run this by the board for confirmation)
that for the PMC to create a new entity, with rights to use the Apache
name and trademarks, the PMC must actually vote on it, which should
probably happen on the private list, as such a vote might contain
personal remarks about the people starting the ALC in question ("I don't
trust that Daniel guy, you know how he is!")
I think, before we authorize any more of these groups, we should write a
formal proposal of how we are planning to vet these groups, and send it
to the board list. (Good news: most of the board members are here, so
this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.)
My personal opinion is that we should require an ASF member to be
involved, at least initially, and perhaps relax that when we revisit in,
say, six months.
## 2. How we make sure that we are not having people use the Apache name
to promote messages that are not *our* message.
*Very critical & important point!*
The ALC Indore [2] team was fortunate that we have 4 Committers, 2 PMC
members and the rest members are very active contributors to various
Apache Projects, so we feel the Apache within us.
But it may/will not be the case with the new ALC Chapter, so here are
some solutions to address this issue.
-- We worked on preparing some guidelines for ALC Chapter to execute
the event, https://s.apache.org/alc-guidelines
(I need your kind help in reviewing it.)
This could help us in keeping track of actions taken by ALC and
approving the event before executing it.
This is all really great stuff. We should also coordinate with the
Training project (incubating) with content that can be reused.
@Daniel, this is exactly like you proposed, thoughts travel! :-)
-- If we will have at least 2 committers of 1 ASF member than the
chances of misuse of our name will be reduced.
I will echo a statement made elsewhere (may have even been another
list). We (ComDev) actively encourage project to hand out committer
rights very generously. As such, many committers are completely
unfamiliar with the larger Foundation. My vote (as a PMC member) is that
we require at least one ASF member, at least initially, as I have said
above.
-- We can make a list of the FAQs by the audience, and document it so
that every ALC chapter will have the answer to frequently asked
questions by the audience.
+1
-- We are documenting various information at
https://s.apache.org/ALC-Resources , this will also give the idea to
ALC Chapter what types of events and content they can present to the
audience.
All really good stuff.
## 3. Rule and regulation for ALC Chapter
Although we should not have a hard list of rules and regulation but we
should have some rules, that will help us in managing the ALC
initiative because with time we will grow like currently there is 900+
Google Developer Group [3] and 120+ Facebook Developer Circle [4]
present.
So, to manage and scale the ALC initiative, we should have some
rules/guidelines we prepared. Here are these rules/guidelines.
-- There will be a single ALC chapter per town/city.
-- The ALC members should follow the Apache code of conduct,
https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html
-- It’s strictly prohibited to use ALC Chapter for profit or promoting
any company or personal agenda.
-- If any ALC Chapter is inactive for 3 months, it will be dissolved
after communication with members of that ALC chapter because we are
having strictly one ALC chapter in a town/city.
-- The ALC Chapter shares the status report (e.g. ALC Indore reports -
https://s.apache.org/alc-indore-reports) to ComDev in every three
months.
The report includes details on the activities performed by ALC Chapter
and it's impact.
Here is the index page for reports from each ALC
https://s.apache.org/alc-reports
And the report prepared by ALC Indore for their
August to October 2019 activities is
https://s.apache.org/alc-indore-report-aug-oct-2019
-- Each Chapter should follow ALC Guideline (as mentioned, need your
help in reviewing it) https://s.apache.org/alc-guidelines to execute
any event.
I don't have strong opinions beyond "fewer rules is better". Whatever we
come up with here, we should at least mention in whatever we send to the
board.
-- Also as @Shane mentioned, we can also use some of the concepts and
rationale mentioned at
https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/events
(Below is the statement from our Event Branding Policy we have already
included as suggested by from Joan previously)
=======
The use of Apache marks in any events run by third parties must be
approved by VP, Brand Management or the VP of the relevant Apache
project
=======
Shane, this point was raised by Joan Touzet in September
https://s.apache.org/95wu0 , so we had a discussion on this and
followed this process and included it in
https://s.apache.org/alc-guidelines
As you said, if needed we can add more points from
https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/events
I feel very proud to be the part of the Apache family and in the past 6
years every day, the ASF people inspired me to do better. And the
great things we are doing together surprise me regularly.
Thank you much for your love and support!
Please feel free to share your comments and thoughts.
[1] https://s.apache.org/alc
[2] https://s.apache.org/alc-indore
[3] https://developers.google.com/programs/community/gdg/
[4] https://developers.facebook.com/developercircles/
Best regards,
Swapnil M Mane,
www.apache.org
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 4:53 AM David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 3:15 PM Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
I've made two posts on this list in the past couple of days regarding
the rising ACL effort and my concerns about it.
I *desperately* want this kind of grass-roots enthusiast community
effort. I do NOT want to kill it. But I've learned from Fedora user
groups that allowing any random stranger to start up a group, using our
Trademarks, to promote whatever message comes into their head, is
*going* to bite us in the butt, sooner rather than later.
I haven't been involved with Fedora in a long while, but there were in
early days a real struggle for how to control messaging and who could
speak for Fedora, and how events could be handled, etc. Did the
community own it or did Red Hat?
Fedora had (at least back then) a relatively scalable and
self-policing group called the "Ambassadors" that leveraged messaging
and collateral provided by the Fedora Marketing Project to talk about
Fedora in a unified fashion. There were requirements about prior
activity and some barrier to entry to become an Ambassador, but it
belonging to that group seems somewhat analogous to membership at the
ASF (you had to have been involved in some other aspect of Fedora, you
had to demonstrate some knowledge of Fedora's principles, etc)
So perhaps being 'sponsored' or 'championed' by a member is the
threshold for running an event. Any problems that arise can be
policed from there because we know there's a member we can talk to.
YMMV - I have no idea the current state of the Ambassador program at
Fedora and whether it's considered a success of failure.
--David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
