Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: 'Public Relations Committee' ... Sounds reasonable. We've long had the press@ mailing list. We could inflate this in a slightly bigger PR like institution. And also house webite content and wiki content overview there. But that seems overkill for me. It might help ease the strain being placed on the infrastructure team a little. - Leo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Internationalization list/team
> > As for internationalization, I don't see why it should not be part of Apache > > Commons. I think that it is exactly the correct place for it. I don't know > > that it needs a CVS module, but I'm not opposed to one. > Apache Commons uses SVN :-) self: :-( at: self And I knew that, too. Well, that works. Perhaps better in some respects. So to setup internationalization at Apache Commons, the Commons PMC just has to request a mailing list. I'll leave the SVN issues to the current discussion on infrastructure. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internationalization list/team
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 12:37:28PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: > > > * Mailing Team (Board Committee) > > * Internationalization Team (Board Committee) > > > are what I needed and wanted. > > (*NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]: for i18n) > > There is a mailing team. "apmail" is part of infrastructure. Right. > As for internationalization, I don't see why it should not be part of Apache > Commons. I think that it is exactly the correct place for it. I don't know > that it needs a CVS module, but I'm not opposed to one. Apache Commons uses SVN :-) Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internationalization list/team
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: > * Mailing Team (Board Committee) > * Internationalization Team (Board Committee) > are what I needed and wanted. > (*NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]: for i18n) There is a mailing team. "apmail" is part of infrastructure. As for internationalization, I don't see why it should not be part of Apache Commons. I think that it is exactly the correct place for it. I don't know that it needs a CVS module, but I'm not opposed to one. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: > 'Public Relations Committee' ... Sounds reasonable. We've long had the press@ mailing list. We could inflate this in a slightly bigger PR like institution. And also house webite content and wiki content overview there. But that seems overkill for me. DW - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [RT] Mailing Lists
Your points about low-bandwidth devices seems quite reasonable. Your proposal for a [EMAIL PROTECTED], which could be more verbose seems fine. Do you have a proposal for a size limit to enforce on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please do *not* consider requests to respect announce@ bandwidth > as a slight against your efforts or your results. The idea and it's > execution is fantastic. Thank you for riding the PMCs to get articles > to you. Before you stepped up, this was a significant void in the ASF > and the only thing that came close was the 'apache' forum on /. Agreed. I think that everyone has been asking Testuya to continue as the editor for just these very reasons. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The board is not responsible!
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:07:17 -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The two board ones answer to the board, infrastructure answers to the > president. If their was a public relations or communications committee, > the newsletter would obviously fit right there. 'Public Relations Committee' ... Sounds reasonable. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (and hidden :-) mail address) would be related there. Also, 'Communications Committee' ... Maybe, the creation and supervision of mailing lists (including XX project) can be related to it. (Virii, Spam mails, etc.) .. highly related to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Both can be highly associated with Newsletter and make sense. Which entity will be responsible to create such "PRODUCE NO PRODUCTS" entities? Board? Member? Incubator? -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The board is not responsible!
At 09:12 AM 10/22/2003, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: >On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:31:20 - >(Subject: RE: The board is not responsible!) >Magnus ?or Torfason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > Isn't the ASF Board ultimately responsible >> > This is just wrong. Responsibility lies with the individual >> > commiters, members, and their associated project PMCs. >> But this seems to have been exactly the problem with the recent >> discussions. The arguments have been over the use of the >> announce@apache.org mailing list, and there seems to be no PMC >> responsible for that list. > >* Fund-raising (Board Committee) >* Security Team (Board Committee) >* Infrastructure or Operations team (Presidents Committee) > >These three do not have PMC entities in the strict sense of the word. These are (non-project) management committees. They are empowered to make certain decisions and are accountable to the membership as a whole through the board and president, respectively. The two board ones answer to the board, infrastructure answers to the president. If their was a public relations or communications committee, the newsletter would obviously fit right there. Bill - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RT] Mailing Lists
At 12:55 AM 10/22/2003, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: >Furthermore, I got just "ONE" private mail which said >"please unsubscribe me from announce@" in these 2 months. >-- ONLY "1" --. >(NOTE: previous mail contains "Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]") > >Great! Statistics proved that most of the participants >to announce@apache.org list were welcoming such a newsletter! It would be nice if this followed, but there is no way to determine which messages users read. If I'm a sysadmin, I won't be unsubscribing from the list no matter how much it annoys me. Many have as few as one outward facing listeners, that one is often 80. Many users should consider this list in their 'crucial' inbox. >Now, I can declare PROUDLY, that >"To those who do not want to receive over 40k mails: please >unsubscribe. Can't you see the procedure of how-to @ the >bottom of each mails?". Tetsuya, I'm very happy with the progress of the newsletter, but I continue to disagree with your assumption and err on the side of those that must limit their saturation. Consider please that you have co-opted the only central resource for information about every security vulnerability announcement stream coming from the ASF. These are ideal messages to take on PDA's, cell phones etc, which in the US and elsewhere remain low-bandwidth devices. Looking at ten commercial vendors mails (RSA, MS, and the like) that I get, including a few news blurbs, I find that all of them are tables of content, containing links to each article. In some cases I'm asked if I would like vanilla text or html flavor. That really is a courtesy, on a dumb device like my older Siemens phone text is much simpler. If MS can be respectful of folks choices, why shouldn't we? I don't see anything unreasonable about an [EMAIL PROTECTED] list if you want to distribute the full document, with the TOC and pointers in the announce@ stream. We can certainly relay other newsworthy bulletins in a news@ channel. If I were not chained to my desk those announcements would be routed to my phone, not my desktop. This argument seems totally bound up in 'Cable/DSL modems make this whole argument moot'. That's not the only email venue. The other argument seems centered around 'your client lets you download or keep messages on the server, filter them, etc - we don't have to do this'. Phones and pda's leave alot to be desired for the sort of filtering that everyone expects in this discussion. announce@ had a very specific semantic. Most projects, if they post change notes in an announcement, filter them to details that users will consider important. Size does matter, and the announce@ list had traditionally provided concise, timely and often critical details. >Furthermore, "If you just want to get the news of httpd *ONLY*, >please subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Over >17770 subscribers to announce@httpd.apache.org might be >waiting your subscription!" Agreed, if they want to see only their favorite project's releases, this is sage advice. Please do *not* consider requests to respect announce@ bandwidth as a slight against your efforts or your results. The idea and it's execution is fantastic. Thank you for riding the PMCs to get articles to you. Before you stepped up, this was a significant void in the ASF and the only thing that came close was the 'apache' forum on /. Bill - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The board is not responsible!
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:55:57 -0400 "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Everyone agreed that an announcement was fully appropriate. The > question is whether the entire newsletter, itself, should be e-mailed > or just an announcement. The reaction has been out of proportion with > the event, and has escalated beyond the point of recognition. Yes, I think. Also, it is because http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=2239 I declared that ** There is still a room for the discussion about the 'frequency' and ** 'place to post', however, I want to do the "experimentation" for a ** while. (not so long) ** I think "experimentation" might conform to the "A Patchy" spirits ;-) ... nevertheless someone forgot this (my) statement. That's all. -- * Mailing Team (Board Committee) * Internationalization Team (Board Committee) are what I needed and wanted. (*NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]: for i18n) These two team can not produce "PRODUCTS", however, I think it would be required and what people want. These suffice my intentions as well as ByLaws of Foundation, I suspect. -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The board is not responsible!
> > > Isn't the ASF Board ultimately responsible > > This is just wrong. Responsibility lies with the individual > > commiters, members, and their associated project PMCs. > But this seems to have been exactly the problem with the recent > discussions. The arguments have been over the use of the > announce@apache.org mailing list, and there seems to be no PMC > responsible for that list. First of all, this is massively out of proportion. There were a few comments made by people who felt that an announcement should be e-mailed instead of the entire newsletter. That's all. Contrary to what has been said, there was no attempt by "The Infrastructure Team" to regulate anything. As has been said before, infrastructure implements policy; it rarely establishes policy. As for whom should make the policy decision, we are they. It is a community decision. The Members are the ultimate decision-makers, but I think that is unnecessary for a decision of this nature. The more that decisions are made at the Community level, if there is a good consensus, the better. Everyone agreed that an announcement was fully appropriate. The question is whether the entire newsletter, itself, should be e-mailed or just an announcement. The reaction has been out of proportion with the event, and has escalated beyond the point of recognition. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The board is not responsible!
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:31:20 - (Subject: RE: The board is not responsible!) Magnus ?or Torfason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Isn't the ASF Board ultimately responsible > > This is just wrong. Responsibility lies with the individual > > commiters, members, and their associated project PMCs. > But this seems to have been exactly the problem with the recent > discussions. The arguments have been over the use of the > announce@apache.org mailing list, and there seems to be no PMC > responsible for that list. * Fund-raising (Board Committee) * Security Team (Board Committee) * Infrastructure or Operations team (Presidents Committee) These three do not have PMC entities in the strict sense of the word. That issue was: "Infrastructure Team should not legitimatize the newsletter or vice versa." Rather, I would like to see the "Newsletter Team (Apache History Team?)" (Board Committee) and should be found at /home/cvs/committers/board/committie-info.txt ... would be an equal footing with infrastructure team. Or, "Mailing Team" (Board Committee) which would be highly associated with apmail@ entity. > Should there perhaps be such a PMC, or a PMC responsible for all > mailing lists not managed by any other PMCs? -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - Tetsuya Kitahata -- Terra-International, Inc. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.terra-intl.com/ Apache Software Foundation Committer: http://www.apache.org/~tetsuya/ fingerprint: E420 3713 FAB0 C160 4A1E 6FC5 5846 23D6 80AE BDEA - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The board is not responsible!
> > Isn't the ASF Board ultimately responsible > > This is just wrong. Responsibility lies with the individual > commiters, members, and their associated project PMCs. But this seems to have been exactly the problem with the recent discussions. The arguments have been over the use of the announce@apache.org mailing list, and there seems to be no PMC responsible for that list. Should there perhaps be such a PMC, or a PMC responsible for all mailing lists not managed by any other PMCs? Regards, Magnus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The board is not responsible!
Isn't the ASF Board ultimately responsible This is just wrong. Responsibility lies with the individual commiters, members, and their associated project PMCs. This is the modern world, there are no kings any more. Different institutions are responsible for different aspects of the whole ball of wax. In corp. governance, and hence in the ASF the responsibility of boards is _very_ circumscribed. Don't look to the board as some kind of overriding lever on the foundation's control board. It's not the master tiller of the ASF boat. Each PMC is it's own boat in the water. The board's only function is to fufill legally required oversight that assures we do not go so far off course as to run aground on some illegal activity or some sand bar outside our charter/principles/mission. Those obstacles to navigation circumscribe the perimeter of a very big sea. All activity within that pond is your responsibility. The board exists only because we have to have a governing structure that matched the expectation of the law. All boards are responsible only for oversight. They are like an auditor. They are not responsible for execution. The law intentionally partitions responsibly for execution from the oversight responsibility. The case law is clear that if execution and board functions merge then that is bad. The case law is also clear that as long as boards do the oversight all manner of lousy inane bizarre execution can take place and they aren't liable. I am not a lawyer. So all this should be taken with a grain of salt. But, when I was on the board I did take the time to read a few books on what my responsibilities were. Bear in mind - particularly when the board is being a pest about PMC status reports - that the board is personally liable for failing to do the oversight job. In the ASF the PMC play the role of managers. The PMC are ultimately responsible. The board sees to it that the PMC keep the board notified of their activities. They do this so that they can fulfill their responsibility for to assure that the PMC are in fact fulfilling the ASF's charter. Now if you want the board to change the shape of the pond? For example if you wanted to force an ASF wide policy about committer/member ratio on projects say. You could advocate to them for that. You could, via the members, elect board members who would work to shape the pond to your desires. But these are, intentionally, blunt and difficult to weld ways to change how things are going. The way the ASF encourages is to work directly, with a bias for action, thru the projects. Any attempt to appeal to the authority of the board for more than that is likely to lead to nothing but frustration for the petitioners. It is the job of the PMC to manage their own house. If you wish to appeal to some authority, as versus take the bull by the horns directly, then one or another PMC is the place to look. If your not satisfied with the outcome then you need to look to how your PMC is elected or structured. We have worked hard to assure that we don't get drawn into the trap of having some sort of elite who's authority trumps all others. I doubt that encouraging the board to become that elite is a good idea. I doubt they are likely to take the job - no matter how often people offer it to them. Feel free to call them on it if you notice them trending in that direction. This is by design: Don't go looking for da man. He is nowhere. He is you! - ben - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RT] Mailing Lists
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:55:52 +0900 Tetsuya Kitahata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Also, statistics shows everything. Nah... "Statistics can stir up our imagination"! ... :-) -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inappropriate use of announce@
Phil Steitz wrote: Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Phil Steitz wrote: Craig R. McClanahan wrote: ... I don't think that effective decision-making in a large organization *requires* bureacracy. You're right. It requires responsibility. It's possible that an entity is responsible of something without having bureacracy in place. In Apache it's mainly meritocratic communities that decide through the Apache decision-making process (not necessarily voting). Here it seems that it's not clear who is ultimately responsible for this, or if there is lack of oversight, but I might be wrong. I don't quite understand. Isn't the ASF Board ultimately responsible? Ultimately yes. But there's delegation. I would view that responsibility, however, as procedural/legal in the day-to-day decision-making process (i.e., making sure that charters, legal oblitions, etc. are adhered to). Yes, delegated responsibility has to make it come in line with the day-to-day decision-making process. Maybe I am way off base here, but I see the whole community as responsible. The Board and PMCs (relatively stable "authorities") have to exist for legal reasons and to make program-level decisions (including how charters are defined and how community decision-making works); but the responsibility for day to day decisions (such as how to distribute the newsletter) belongs with the community -- especially those who are stepping up to do the work. > I know that it may be naive to assume that the "community" can effectively decide everything One thing is to decide, and one is to be held responsible for it. They are not the same thing. In an organization, there are different levels of responsablity, because of delegation. and that the discussion/voting process will always lead to consensus. Voting does not need to have consensus to be effective. I have seen a few situations where this has failed; but I don't see pushing decisions off to "responsible parties" or "ultimate authoriteies" as any better than letting individuals *take* responsibility and defend their ideas and actions among the community. It is, and the two things are not in contrast. Good delegation mmeans that decisions have to be taken by the lowest entity that can take them. In this case the community. But when this fails, someone has to pull the reigns and make a decision arise. In this case the PMC chair has to make sure that the action items are voted by the community and a decision is taken by them. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inappropriate use of announce@
On Wednesday, Oct 22, 2003, at 01:23 Europe/Rome, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: "Condemn the offense but not the offender." ( Tsumi wo nikun de, hito wo nikuma zu ) I'll add this to my list of design patterns for community management. Without this principle, e-mail communication might soon end up with the meaningless controversies, and full of frastrations ... We are cleverer than yesterday :-) ... I think so. Yes. Thank you, You are welcome. I got a good feeling out of this: we are all different and our text based asynchronous communication media might just suck us dry after a while... but human signal *does* get thru. And this, more than any newsletter or infrastructure, is what, IMO, makes us (the ASF) a different kind of community. A place where you are ready to step the frustration aside to learn and, as you say, be "cleverer than yesterday". Tetsuya. P.S. Yes, I think I should "take a rest" for a while. I will unsubscribe all the -dev lists which I am now participating, and travel (Not for Yoga in Mt. Fuji :-) in the next month.. I want to go to Okinawa and Kyoto) I think it's a very good idea. Pull the plug for a while, if you can, get back to the simple things. You'll find things more balanced in your mind after that. Ciao. -- Stefano. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[RT] Mailing Lists
Hi, Thanx to RoUS (Ken), now I can get the precise statistics of the number of the participants of each mailing lists in apache.org. Really great job, RoUS! -- Well, now: Subscribers: 8316 - announce@apache.org: (as of 21st October) IIRC, as of 17th July (3 months ago), we had Subscribers: 7400 - announce@apache.org This showed that we got extra (additional) 900 subscribers to announce@apache.org list, ASF-Wide Announcement List, in these 3 months! I assume this "extra (additional)" 900 subscribers has already known that they would receive over 40k mails (newsletter) monthly or bi-monthly. Furthermore, I got just "ONE" private mail which said "please unsubscribe me from announce@" in these 2 months. -- ONLY "1" --. (NOTE: previous mail contains "Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]") Great! Statistics proved that most of the participants to announce@apache.org list were welcoming such a newsletter! Now, I can declare PROUDLY, that "To those who do not want to receive over 40k mails: please unsubscribe. Can't you see the procedure of how-to @ the bottom of each mails?". Furthermore, "If you just want to get the news of httpd *ONLY*, please subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Over 17770 subscribers to announce@httpd.apache.org might be waiting your subscription!" -- We, developers, tend to view the world by using only their left-side brain, with colored-eyeglass. Prejudice. announce@apache.org list subscribers are our "users". Users are wise enough (if given sufficient, precise information). Also, statistics shows everything. Anyway, we got extra (additional) 900 subscribers to announce@apache.org list in these 3 months! Great! Perfect marketing effort! This is all the great contributions from many many contributors to the #1, #2 newsletter. I *DO* really thank to all the contributors (writers) to that newsletter, indeed. Thank you, Regards, -- Tetsuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - P.S. How to get the number/moderator of XX mailinglist?! The description of this procedure is now available via cvs/committers/docs/mailinglist-tips.txt ... enjoy! - Tetsuya Kitahata -- Terra-International, Inc. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.terra-intl.com/ Apache Software Foundation Committer: http://www.apache.org/~tetsuya/ fingerprint: E420 3713 FAB0 C160 4A1E 6FC5 5846 23D6 80AE BDEA - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inappropriate use of announce@
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Phil Steitz wrote: Craig R. McClanahan wrote: ... I don't think that effective decision-making in a large organization *requires* bureacracy. You're right. It requires responsibility. It's possible that an entity is responsible of something without having bureacracy in place. In Apache it's mainly meritocratic communities that decide through the Apache decision-making process (not necessarily voting). Here it seems that it's not clear who is ultimately responsible for this, or if there is lack of oversight, but I might be wrong. I don't quite understand. Isn't the ASF Board ultimately responsible? I would view that responsibility, however, as procedural/legal in the day-to-day decision-making process (i.e., making sure that charters, legal oblitions, etc. are adhered to). Maybe I am way off base here, but I see the whole community as responsible. The Board and PMCs (relatively stable "authorities") have to exist for legal reasons and to make program-level decisions (including how charters are defined and how community decision-making works); but the responsibility for day to day decisions (such as how to distribute the newsletter) belongs with the community -- especially those who are stepping up to do the work. I know that it may be naive to assume that the "community" can effectively decide everything and that the discussion/voting process will always lead to consensus. I have seen a few situations where this has failed; but I don't see pushing decisions off to "responsible parties" or "ultimate authoriteies" as any better than letting individuals *take* responsibility and defend their ideas and actions among the community. Phil - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
