Meaning: proactively trying to doing the right thing, trying to define boundaries before wrongdoing happens, is wrong?
Best regards, Pierre Smits *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace* http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Chris Douglas <cdoug...@apache.org> wrote: > Daniel- > > If you have these concerns about mentors, a TLP proposal, or even an > active TLP substantiated only by private information: notify the board > via board-private@. That's why it's there. > > The proposal accuses mentors of selling influence, and acting contrary > to the foundation's interest. That is by definition a problem to which > we react, with proof of guilt. "Proactively" treating volunteers as > suspect demands that mentors prove their innocence. Assuming guilt is > not "proactive," but uncivil and immoral. > > There are also practical objections. Every IPMC member has a binding > vote on decisions made by the incubator, period. IPMC members may > voluntarily recuse themselves, but a policy that suppresses the votes > of "suspicious" groups is invalid. > > The TLP resolution is only recommended by the IPMC. Anything achieved > by this proposal is better implemented by the board considering that > recommendation in context- including evidence provided privately- and > rejecting improper proposals with actionable feedback to the PPMC. -C > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> > wrote: > > Does there always have to be an actual problem before we can propose a > > policy? must we always be reactive instead of proactive? > > > > Yes, I am in a way implying that some mentors are, perhaps, not neutral > > in their work. I will not back it up with specific names or contexts, as > > I don't want to take a trip to lawsuit town for things I cannot back up > > with publicly available information. > > > > I don't find this to be uncivil accusations - can you outline a specific > > segment that you find uncivil? I am proposing a set of basic rules - > > which is naturally up for discussion and improvement - that would > > potentially alleviate us from having some nasty discussions - whether > > they be public or private - about the neutrality and honesty of > > recommendations, and hopefully ensure we have a more leveled playing > > field in the incubator. > > > > I'll stop here, as my eyesight is playing a trick on me today and not > > allowing me to see what I type. > > > > With regards, > > Daniel. > > > > On 10/09/2015 08:03 PM, Chris Douglas wrote: > >> What problem does this solve? > >> > >> This proposal lacks context. It implies that mentors are not neutral, > >> and that they are motivated by interests not shared by the ASF. But it > >> does not outline the merits of that belief, neither does it specify > >> how this proposal would address them. Instead of allowing those > >> definitions to float, this discussion would be more productive if it > >> were about some concrete problems for which there is evidence. Yet > >> another thread of rude responses to uncivil accusations is > >> unproductive, even if it is an IPMC tradition. -C > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> Hi Incubator folks, > >>> > >>> I would like to propose we adopt a mentor neutrality policy for > >>> incubating podlings: > >>> > >>> - A mentor must not be financially tied to the project or its > incubation > >>> status. > >>> - A mentor must not have a vested interest in incubating, graduating or > >>> dismantling a podling that goes beyond the general Apache mission > >>> - A mentor must not be affiliated with the entity granting the code > >>> (company or original project community) > >>> > >>> Furthermore, I would like to see this extended to votes on graduating > or > >>> retiring podlings, so that only people with no organizational (aparty > >>> from the ASF) or financial ties to the project (or the companies behind > >>> it) can cast a binding vote on graduation or retirement. > >>> > >>> This would essentially mean: > >>> > >>> - If you work for a company (or are hired as consultant/advisor) that > is > >>> entering a project into incubation, you cannot mentor it nor vote > >>> for/against its incubation, graduation or retirement. > >>> - If you are a in the original community behind the project, you cannot > >>> mentor it nor vote for/against it. > >>> > >>> I believe this would create a neutral mentorship whose sole mission is > >>> to guide podlings with the interests of the ASF in mind. > >>> > >>> > >>> Please do discuss this. If there is (mostly) positive feedback, I would > >>> like to, at some point, have a vote on including this in the Incubator > >>> policy. I realize this would cut down on the number of potential > >>> mentors, and I would ask that more people step up to the challenge of > >>> mentoring if adopted. > >>> > >>> With regards, > >>> Daniel > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >>> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
