Yes that's probably a good improvement. My one concern is that one shouldn't have to be a technical expert in the project to do this work, so careful wording is necessary.
Rich On Fri, Feb 9, 2024, 20:49 Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Rich. I think we have been headed in this direction for some time > now and something like this is needed. Many thanks for coming up with a > concrete proposal. > > I have one suggestion for improvement, which is in part a problem > statement. Instead of just subscribing to the private@ list, I would > suggest that Sharpeners also subscribe to and even engage primarily on the > dev@ list. The problem statement part of this is that having influence > "behind the curtain" of privacy runs counter to transparency, especially if > that influence is on how the project is run. It's been a while since I > have been on the board, but I remember often pointing to discussions on > private lists that should be public. I don't think its a good idea to have > general discussion about how things are done in a project on private lists > and having the Sharpeners engage exclusively there might encourage more of > that. I think its a best practice to post draft board reports to dev lists > and relay board feedback there. I know a lot of projects do that. That > way, the community understands the thought process and can lead whatever > change is needed, rather than being surprised by it. When I look back on > successful "sharpenings" in the past, the real work generally happened on > the project lists, with only very sensitive or individual people-related > things being worked out on private lists. > > It might be a good idea to look at some historical examples and tease out a > little more what exactly "sharpening" is going to be. If it is primarily > (re-)education or community transformation, that really does need to be > public and community-based. If its more admin / legal / policy compliance, > that fits with the private engagement of the PMC model. > > Phil > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:55 AM Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > > > Ok, this one probably requires a LOT of discussion, but it’s something > > I’ve been thinking about for more than a year, so if some of this seems > > like I’ve already wordsmithed it, that’s why. > > > > Projects go through the Incubator, learn how to Apache, and then they > move > > on. The membership changes. The mission changes. The world changes around > > them. And the lessons of the Incubator are often forgotten, or deemed > > unimportant to the changed circumstances. > > > > This Working Group provides a mechanism for ASF Members to assist the > > board in advising projects. (See the FAQ, “Why a member?” before > objecting > > to this. I am very firm on this point, and I believe that the board will > be > > too, if asked. > > > > I want to STRENUOUSLY encourage you to read the entire proposal before > > responding, because I have foreseen a number of objections to this, most > of > > which go under the heading of “who are YOU to tell US what to do?!” I am > > very cognizant of this. ComDev is a PEER to other projects, not in a > > position of authority. That said, every member is responsible, to a > certain > > degree, for the direction the entire Foundation takes. > > > > I believe that this effort, if successful, could be hugely influential in > > the trajectory of the ASF in the coming years. I believe that this is, at > > heart, the primary mission of ComDev. I feel very strongly about the > > importance of this working group. I will be glad to hold forth at greater > > length over beer and/or scotch, at the next event facilitated by > wg-social. > > ;-) > > > > Anyways, please read > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/comdev/community/wg-sharpeners/README.md > > and then think a little bit and then let me know what you think. > > > > Proposal also included below for convenience. > > > > > > > > # Sharpeners Work Group (Proposed) > > > > To provide "Sharpeners" - volunteers who come alongside a PMC to offer > > an outsider's perspective on the project, and advice to build their > > community. > > > > ## Who > > > > A Sharpener must be an ASF member. They are preferably a member who has > > been around a while, and has some reason to be trusted as a mentor. You > > must not already be a member of the PMC. You must not have any > > adversarial reason to take on the role - a bone to pick, a corporate > > entanglement, or whatever. > > > > ## What > > > > A Sharpener will subscribe to the project's PMC list > > (priv...@project.apache.org) and mostly listen. They will comment > > constructively when they see something that may be improved. They will > > report concerns back to the board, via <private> sections in the ComDev > > report, under a new "Workgroups" section that will be created for this > > purpose. > > > > ## Values > > > > Interactions by Sharpeners are at the pleasure of the PMC. You do not > > have any authority over the PMC. > > > > ### Declinable > > > > The PMC must be allowed to say "no thank you" without providing any > > reason, and you must respect that decision, and not offer again unless > > invited. > > > > ### Transparent > > > > When you subscribe to the private@ list, you MUST introduce yourself and > > state your purpose, complete with a link to THIS document. You MUST tell > > the PMC when you intend to report something back to either ComDev or the > > Board. > > > > We will also track, here, in this repository, which Sharpener is > > observing which project. > > > > ### Non-adversarial > > > > All feedback must be a polite, positive, actionable suggestion, not > > merely a criticism or a "you're doing it wrong." You must suggest what > > the PMC should do, providing links to policy or best practice documents > > where applicable. Simply criticising is not welcome. > > > > If you cannot operate in this fashion, then this role isn't for you. > > > > ### Confidential > > > > (No, this isn't a contradiction to Transparent. Different audiences.) > > > > All communications on private@ mailing lists are confidential. Sharing > > information you learned on those lists to anyone outside of the > > membership of the ASF is a severe breach of trust. > > > > Do not ever cross-post between private lists with disjoint audiences. In > > general, this means don't forward content from a private list to anyone > > who is not an ASF member. > > > > All reports on Sharpener activity must be in <private> sections, unless > > you have coordinated with the PMC to include it in *their* report. > > > > ### Collegial > > > > You are a colleague - a peer. You are not in a position of authority. > > You cannot tell the PMC what to do. You are only an observer, and, at > > the indulgence of the PMC, advisor. Do not abuse this relationship. > > > > ## FAQ > > > > ### Why "Sharpener" > > > > Because I wanted an "sh" word, to go along with Shepherds and Shadows, > > which I'll be writing about elsewhere. > > > > "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another." > > > > ### Why a member? > > > > A Sharpener must be an ASF member. This is because doing this job > > requires access to a projects private@ PMC mailing list. All ASF members > > already have this access. > > > > Furthermore, an ASF member has already earned trust in the context of > > the ASF. Trust is transitive - that is, you may not know all members > > personally, but each member was nominated and elected by people that > > you, in turn, nominated and elected. > > > > > > > > > > > > — > > Rich Bowen > > rbo...@rcbowen.com > > > > > > > > > > >
