On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 02:00:52PM +0200, Muellners ApS wrote: > *"When late Stephen Hawkings wrote scientific papers, the papers would > get peer reviewed & then published. What incredible and amazing ideas, yet > peer reviewed. What a humble human being! I now wonder if he had started > self approving his own talks. How much humanity would then have discovered > about black holes?"*
Rich has already explained that we allow self-approval since track chairs are subject matter experts, and we want their talks. This has been the position for two decades. Your notion of peer-reviewed talks is not the chosen model. So you can stop beating this dead horse, and move on with contributing to Fineract, instead of complaining about the now-finished conference. > *???Governance of "Intellectual Property" generated by many developers, > across the world, and which is adopted by the Financial services sector, > who all seek that the financial technology, which they work with or adopt, > is truly free from any influence of "For Profit" stakeholders.??? I am sad > to say that what has come to my attention, is perhaps not the industry > defining standards of open source IP and project management.* Most F/OSS projects are developed by people with financial interest in the outcome of those projects. Nothing new there. > *Now that we are here, I'm encouraging non presumptive, empathetic, patient > and peaceful dialogue, perhaps exercising a bit of restraint, (most likely You and your peers at Muellsner are exhibiting none of these traits. >... > 1. Chair Appointment: A Track chair(TC) appointment was not discussed on > this list. Yes, it was. Rich provided a link. Move along. >... > *I **would like to invite the Board to help us understand whether they have > appointed a single person as TC, on PMC???s advice, and in absence of the > community being able to exercise its decision making ability on this list* The Board is wholly uninvolved in the TC process. That was the PMC and the VP Conferences. The Board delegated it, so it doesn't care, and you'll get no action from them on this. > 2. Review of Proposals: The Track committee (if it only contained a single > person) has forgotten to post any invitation/access to the Proposal Review > Console for "peer review". > > The community may feel excluded if a process lets a single person go > through proposals and scientific ideas of others, and without following the > Apache way of decision making, then I am seriously alarmed by the presence > of such processes in this Non for profit ASF???s activities. You are making up your own definition of how the track chair operates. It does not match reality, and you and your Muellsner colleagues are the only ones complaining. This model of selection is fine and appropriate for a non-profit charity such as the ASF. > 3. The PMC self nomination exercise by Saransh, Bruce and others is nothing > but a healthy demonstration. What they are possibly demonstrating is the > finiteness to self approvals and self nominations in this Apache community. > As we can see, the first PMC is constituted by the board and nominations > thereafter only by an existing member. The chair itself is an ASF officer. > (Hope the chair is not made by cutting more wood though.) PMCs play a vital > role in managing the project affairs & representing the project community. > PMC actions are also sequentially ratified by the Board, on the premise of > "Quarterly Board Report" and a private mailing list amongst other tools. > > *The nature of my objections bring me to see a lesser inclusive > representation of the project community by its PMC. Does this mean that the > Board of ASF now holds a fiduciary responsibility to respond to these > objections? * You are demonstrating your lack of knowledge of how the ASF operates, and why it operates this way. You should probably do more observation and asking question, rather than stating "it is wrong". The Board does not ratify decisions (it has delegated that decision-making), and the Board holds no fiduciary responsibility because there are no money flows within the projects. > I am sorry to say but we may have failed to establish some of the best > enterprising, socially inclined & sustainable practices for this open > source *financial technology *project. To your perception, yes. But as I stated in elsewhere in this thread, the Foundation has demonstrated this community model successfully for over two decades. > As many members, including some of the Board Members of ASF, have > deliberated over this thread, I welcome this as a healthy dialogue(read not > dispute) in the hope that these gaps are mitigated by this community, in You are the only person disputing the conference process and the governance model that is in place. I am one person saying that you have no idea what you're talking about. Others may agree. The PMC may agree, take no position, or ask you to just move along. I suggest you start contributing to the code, rather than worry about the now-finished conference or the governance model. You cannot change either, but you can demonstrate that you are a positive contributor to the community. Regards, Greg
