Thank you, Katia. I've seen you trying to send multiple emails to committers@ along with whatever is being disseminated to the [email protected] list.
This is improper use of the committers@ email --this list is restricted to very specific types of messages. We cannot be copying 7,000+ recipients on every conversational message or project update. This why none of your messages have been moderated through. Please let me know specifically what you're looking for (what is your intended outcome) so we can sort out the best way to proceed with a tactical plan. Kind regards, Sally - - - Vice President Marketing & Publicity Vice President Sponsor Relations The Apache Software Foundation Tel +1 617 921 8656 | [email protected] On Wed, Oct 23, 2019, at 20:40, Katia Rojas wrote: > Good point. > > I ping press@. Sally, could you help us? > > Thanks, > > > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 02:06, Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sally would probably be very helpful to reach a wider group. She has direct >> lines with media and it is likely that some/many of these would assist in >> getting the message out. Could perhaps also contact StackOverflow (others?) >> and see if they would be interested to help out with maybe a small >> paragraph in their newsletter. >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:52 PM Katia Rojas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Thanks, Shane. >> > >> > And what about sending it to: >> > [email protected] and >> > [email protected] >> > As the *effective* group of people we can contact with hopes of responses? >> > >> > Would be acceptable to define “contributor” in this survey as people >> > involved with the ASF and that we could reach them out by the mailing >> > lists? >> > How could we justify being more inclusive but at the same time effective >> > because sending postal cards or phone calls or any other channel different >> > from email is not viable. Is it possible to justify or not? >> > >> > I understand that “all” is a big term and might be impossible to be done if >> > we are strict with the terminology and what it implies so my question would >> > be is it possible or desirable to focus on committers and a sector of non >> > committers (don’t know how small or big it would be dev@) to get an >> > initial >> > idea of the barriers they are encountering while trying to join us? >> > >> > I can see both points of view. I am not 100 percent sure if it is better >> > this way or the other. From my perspective, only committers is limited but >> > I struggle justifying or defining the definition of “contributors” that we >> > are using here and that it doesn’t have to be necessarily a definition to >> > be used in other projects. I think there is space to define this term but I >> > wouldn’t like to be arbitrary and exclude people because it is not possible >> > to contact them. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 16:46, Shane Curcuru <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > Katia Rojas wrote on 2019-10-23 3:22PM GMT+2: >> > > ...snip... >> > > > Where should we send the survey that we've been working on? >> > > > >> > > > So far there is a strong opinion on sending it only to the >> > > > [email protected] <[email protected]> >> > > > >> > > > The main purpose of this survey is to gather feedback from all existing >> > > ASF >> > > > contributors about the current level of diversity and inclusion, >> > > including >> > > > education, age, socio-economic status, and gender. >> > > ...snip... >> > > "All existing ASF contributors" is tens of thousands of people, many of >> > > whom we may not have any effective way to contact (i.e. drive-by >> > > contributors to various Apache projects in the past). So defining >> > > "contributor" is important; it's also important to decide what >> > > *effective* group of people we can contact with hopes of responses. >> > > >> > > dev@diversity will only get a very small number of highly self-selected >> > > individuals, so is no where near what we need. >> > > >> > > It seems to me (and I'm not on the survey team), the best thing to do is >> > > mirror the existing 2016 survey and send a single, well-written email to >> > > [email protected] asking all Apache committers to respond. While >> > > that won't catch non-committers who have contributed, it's a very >> > > important metric to start with, and is much easier than trying to >> > > contact all-dev@ lists or use the giant announce@ list. >> > > >> > > I understand the goal; but the effort and effectiveness for reaching >> > > *all* contributors is much higher. It feels like getting a really solid >> > > set of committer data first might be best. >> > > >> > > Does that make sense? >> > > >> > > Note also that there are specific technical rules for successfully >> > > emailing committers@ or other wide lists, so be sure to work with infra >> > > or someone to get help before physically sending the mail. >> > > >> > > -- >> > > >> > > - Shane >> > > Director & Member >> > > The Apache Software Foundation >> > > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer >> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
