Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Berin Lautenbach wrote: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > >>when I subscribed to some mailing lists, I got stunned > >>at seeing the fact that some mailing lists accepted > >>spam mails. > > > > > > Some lists were setup wrong. AFAIK, none of the lists should accept mail > > from non-subscribers without moderation. > > Although there are some lists where it might be nice. Particularly: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - where the risk of false positives is the highest. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - since its job is oversight and should allow messages from community members who are not subscribed (and can't be if they're not ASF members). Brian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Noel J. Bergman dijo: >> Is there any reason we don't run something like Spam Assassin > > We do have anti-spam filters. The problem is balancing false positives > against spam. The bias has been against false positives. I've no doubt > that more can, and will, be done in the future. This is a very interesting area. I think we can request a donation from NAI for a SpamKillerAppliance: http://www.nai.com/us/products/mcafee/antispam/spk_appliances.htm They use our Apache Tomcat inside, so a giving back to the ASF will be fair :-D Is this viable? Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
> > Some lists were setup wrong. AFAIK, none of the lists should accept mail > > from non-subscribers without moderation. > Although there are some lists where it might be nice. repository@ was setup that way. There was no advertisement of its existence, yet it was receiving spam. I don't think that it is feasible for any list to accept non-moderated mail from non-subscribers. > Is there any reason we don't run something like Spam Assassin We do have anti-spam filters. The problem is balancing false positives against spam. The bias has been against false positives. I've no doubt that more can, and will, be done in the future. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Noel J. Bergman wrote: when I subscribed to some mailing lists, I got stunned at seeing the fact that some mailing lists accepted spam mails. Some lists were setup wrong. AFAIK, none of the lists should accept mail from non-subscribers without moderation. Although there are some lists where it might be nice. I am *sure* this has been gone over before - so I ask for my own edification. Is there any reason we don't run something like Spam Assassin (processing/support etc.?) Cheers, Berin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 12:11:16PM +0900, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: > keen eyes to exact infrastructural issues and "not to omit important > mails coming to infra@ and root@". I'm sorry, but what emails have been omitted? Please don't ascribe to malice what can be explained by lack of time. The people on the other side of the curtain are human beings (and unpaid volunteers at that). So, if you don't receive a response, it'd be helpful to resend any messages. Regardless of what some people think, we're not completely evil bastards. > As for mailing lists maintainance, I think "Communication" Committee > would fit to that task as well as infrastructure committee. > AAMOF, when I subscribed to some mailing lists, I got stunned > at seeing the fact that some mailing lists accepted spam mails. At one time, I believe this was *intentional* when it was created. All postings were supposed to go through. Now, with the amount of spam, it's possible that wasn't the greatest of ideas. Has anyone sent email to apmail@ asking for it to be changed? (Realize that few apmail@ people read [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > what I often see at the new mailing lists are the omit of > "Reply-To:" Header. I do not think it would be acceptable > diversity. "Communication" Committee can establish such a policy. There are *lots* of reasons not to set the Reply-To header (aka Reply-To munging). The current ASF policy is to let each mailing list decide if it should be set. I think you want to centralize policy across the ASF for things that need not be centralized. I really believe that the participants on the project should set the policy. They can ask for recommendations, sure. But, infrastructure@ has taken the policy on some things to *not* set policy. The responsibility that comes with 'power' (such as it is) is to know when not to wield it. > Maintanance of "site" is not "infrastructural" one. Rather, public > relations. Establishing [EMAIL PROTECTED] and FWing the mails > coming to such address to PR committee would suffice. The same goes > for [EMAIL PROTECTED] Again, you've overlooked the statement that infrastructure@ has asked on several occassions for these to be forwarded to a group and it was rejected each time. Have you bothered to ask the person who is running [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] if they want to share? Every time we've asked, we've gotten a very strong no. I disagree that there is such a clamor to maintain 'site' that it needs a separate committee on its own. All ASF members already have access by default, and karma can be granted upon demand if you ask nicely. > For example, see http://maven.apache.org/ Anyone would think that > maven is now under "jakarta" (see the logo). I do not think such > impressions would be good for the asf as a whole. Who would watch > these kinds of things? infrastructure? .. NO, PR committee. Uh, the Maven PMC? The board or infrastructure or any committee shouldn't be telling Maven what's good for them. The people who contribute to Maven get the ability to design their website. The only responsibility of the board is to make sure there isn't anything that legally endangers the ASF, and infrastructure makes sure the server is serving pages correctly. But, the content is solely the responsibility of Maven PMC and its committers. > PR and Communication committees should keep good relations with each > committers/members/developers. The ultimate goal would be > "improvements of (user|member|committer|developer)-friendliness" And, let me ask a more pivotal question: Who is going to staff this committee? Do you really think that there is a great untapped resource that hasn't been found of people willing to do this? If so, what is preventing them from doing these tasks already? My answers are: no and nothing. I honestly don't see a need to create more overhead. The committees we already have are under-represented anyway. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
> when I subscribed to some mailing lists, I got stunned (B> at seeing the fact that some mailing lists accepted (B> spam mails. (B (BSome lists were setup wrong. AFAIK, none of the lists should accept mail (Bfrom non-subscribers without moderation. (B (B> I thought that this was tightly related to the negligence of (B> infrastructure committees' nobless obligations. (B (BThere are several 100 lists at present. It might be possible to write a (Bscript to validate some aspect of ezmlm configuration. But to refer to it (Bas negligence or nobless oblige is unfair to the people who work their arses (Boff maintaining the infrastructure. (B (BYour example of Reply-To sounds like like a mistake in implementation that (Bof policy. Mistakes happen. If there is an error in the setup instructions (Bor scripts, that can be fixed. (B (B> Maintanance of "site" is not "infrastructural" one. Rather, public (B> relations. (B (BActually, maintenance of site is a responsibility of the Members. Every (BMember has the ability to regenerate site. If is very simple. As with any (Banakia-based site, the basic steps are: (B (B 1. cvs co/up site (B 2. make changes to xdocs (B 3. run the build script (included in the module) (B 4. commit changes. (B 5. sign onto the live server (B 6. cvs up live site (B (B> Also, I think that the overall watching the XX.apache.org site (B> would be important. PR committee should do just "suggestions", (B> however, unified view would suffice the users' gratifications. (B (BAnyone can make suggestions. The oversight of each domain is the (Bresponsibility of that PMC. If you feel that there is a problem, let them (Bknow. If there is a real problem and the PMC fails to act, there are other (Brecourses. (B (B> ApacheCon Advert?? ... PR committee. (B (BI think the ApacheCon committee did a pretty decent job of it. (B (B> Also, please reduce the burdens of infrastructure team. (B (BWe reduce the burden of the infrastructure team by finding more trustworthy (Band competent people. Without the people, it doesn't matter how you slice (Bthe task, the same people still need to do the work. And that is the thing (BI am noticing about your proposal. You keep proposing disparate groups, but (Bthe real need is for additional people. People who can be vested with some (Bof the responsibility of helping to provide a secure infrastructure for the (Bentire ASF. (B (BThere was a time when DLR was the only person who had a clue about (Beyebrowse. It could be months before things were fixed. Berin Lautenbach (Band myself volunteered to learn about eyebrowse, and hopefully have helped (Bto fill that void. (B (BAnd we are starting to deploy tools that can shift capabilities from a (Bcentral group to the groups that need them. For example, Jira lets us put a (Bgreat deal of partitioned control into the hands of a project's developers (Band PMC. That means that the "core" Jira support folks can focus on keeping (BJira running, not on answering lots of requests for change from the (Bprojects. Subversion will reduce the burden on root and cvsadmin. (B (BIMO, the greatest improvement will come from a larger pool of resources, and (Bfrom tools that securely distribute capabilities. In some respects, the (Blatter will help develop the former. (B (B--- Noel (B (B (B- (BTo unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (BFor additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
(BOn Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:33:45 +0200
(B(Subject: Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!))
(BErik Abele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(B
(B> I don't want to be an "enthusiasm blocker" but I have to agree with
(B> what Justin already said. Tetsuya, do you think that the suggested
(B> split-ups are reducing the amount of bureaucracy we already have in
(B> ASF-land? If so, can you please be so kind and elaborate further on
(B> this?
(B
(BErik, I would rather like to make that proposal more meaningful.
(B
(B"the amount of bureaucracy" would *not* be related to that proposal.
(B
(BI do not think that the site maintainance would fit to infrastructure
(Bteam's task. Rather, I want that committee (infra) to keep
(Bkeen eyes to exact infrastructural issues and "not to omit important
(Bmails coming to infra@ and root@".
(B
(BAs for mailing lists maintainance, I think "Communication" Committee
(Bwould fit to that task as well as infrastructure committee.
(BAAMOF, when I subscribed to some mailing lists, I got stunned
(Bat seeing the fact that some mailing lists accepted spam mails.
(BI thought that this was tightly related to the negligence of
(Binfrastructure committees' nobless obligations. ("nobless obligations"
(Bmeans that that committee did not have such an enthusiasm to
(Bimprove the mailing lists functions. infra team did well in the past,
(Bi think ... though ...) Human beings tend not to do the tasks which
(Bwould not attract their "motivations". I assumed that infrastructure
(Bteam did not have much "motivations" to it. This is one of the reason
(Bof that proposal.
(BI think "Communication" Committee can establish a policy of the
(Bmailing lists maintainances.$B!!(BFor example,
(Bwhat I often see at the new mailing lists are the omit of
(B"Reply-To:" Header. I do not think it would be acceptable
(Bdiversity. "Communication" Committee can establish such a policy.
(B
(B> I'd be fine with some sort of Publicity/PR Committee doing the
(B> newsletter and some marketing stuff but right now I can't think of any
(B> good reasons which would justify a major overhaul of our infrastructure
(B> teams (apmail, site, etc.). Do you see something utterly broken here?
(B
(BMaintanance of "site" is not "infrastructural" one. Rather, public
(Brelations. Establishing [EMAIL PROTECTED] and FWing the mails coming
(Bto such address to PR committee would suffice. The same goes for
(B[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(B
(B--
(B
(BAlso, I think that the overall watching the XX.apache.org site
(Bwould be important. PR committee should do just "suggestions",
(Bhowever, unified view would suffice the users' gratifications.
(B
(BFor example, see
(Bhttp://maven.apache.org/
(BAnyone would think that maven is now under "jakarta" (see the logo).
(BI do not think such impressions would be good for the asf as a whole.
(BWho would watch these kinds of things? infrastructure? .. NO,
(BPR committee.
(B
(BApacheCon Advert?? ... PR committee.
(B
(B--
(B
(BPlease make that proposal of the establishment of "Communication" and
(B"Public Relations" (PR) more meaningful. I've forgotten about that event,
(Bwhich would be related to newsletter on the whole. :)
(B
(BAlso, please reduce the burdens of infrastructure team.
(B
(BPR and Communication committees should keep good relations
(Bwith each committers/members/developers. The ultimate goal would be
(B"improvements of (user|member|committer|developer)-friendliness"
(B
(BCheers,
(B
(B-- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
(B
(B
(B
(B-
(BTo unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(BFor additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The board is not responsible!
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:10:39 +0200 (Subject: Re: The board is not responsible!) Santiago Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Should there perhaps be such a PMC, or a PMC responsible for all > > mailing lists not managed by any other PMCs? > Who manages those managers that don't manage themselves? > XXIst century version of the Barber's paradow > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox > The joys of knowledge workers ;-) Great! Related to "Godel's incompleteness theorem!" nice theory. Ahaha. "Godel's incompleteness theorem" would be highly associated with the tendencies and the behaviours of humanbeings toward "Partial (Local) Optimization" Such a kind of "Partial (Local) Optimization" can be seen everywhere in our country. Glogally, "Local Optimization" would easily lead people to the wrong place, either cause self-contradiction as a whole. These kinds of things are tightly related to the e-mail (and web) communities. Yes, the same goes for the developers' communities. (e.g. The momentum of the balkanization into smaller realms) The only one medical prescription to avoid such a "self-contradiction" is ... the appreciation of the momentum of thinking things globally (synthesis), which would be tightly associated with right-cerebral quarter-sphere:) Thanks, godness. -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The board is not responsible!
El miércoles, 22 octu, 2003, a las 15:31 Europe/Madrid, Magnus ?or Torfason escribió: Should there perhaps be such a PMC, or a PMC responsible for all mailing lists not managed by any other PMCs? Who manages those managers that don't manage themselves? XXIst century version of the Barber's paradow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox The joys of knowledge workers ;-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > 1. website (www.apache.org/ "site" module) maintenance > > and improvements/suggestions of userfriendliness of each $tlp sites. > > I believe the website needs to be ultimately controlled by the infrastructure > committee. We used to have a separate list for doing the 'site' module > (site-dev@), but people found it too cumbersome and it was shut down and all > discussion was moved back to [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, we've tried having 'site' > split off and that failed. And, I also believe that each PMC needs to be > responsible for their own site. The traffic volume on the "site" list was almost zero. I asked to have it removed because I didn't feel there was adequate oversite. More people pay attention on infrastructure. (Perhaps there were a whole bunch of subscribers who just never said anything; I don't know.) Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
I don't want to be an "enthusiasm blocker" but I have to agree with what Justin already said. Tetsuya, do you think that the suggested split-ups are reducing the amount of bureaucracy we already have in ASF-land? If so, can you please be so kind and elaborate further on this? I'd be fine with some sort of Publicity/PR Committee doing the newsletter and some marketing stuff but right now I can't think of any good reasons which would justify a major overhaul of our infrastructure teams (apmail, site, etc.). Do you see something utterly broken here? Cheers and thanks, Erik On 23/10/2003, at 10:50, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: --On Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:44 AM +0900 Tetsuya Kitahata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ?? ... press@ can't be found at http://www.apache.org/mail/ neither eyebrowse. Where can i find the archive (log), by the way? press@ is not a public list. It is the place where PR firms can (and do) contact us. Yet, the content of those messages are not public information. 'Public Relations Committee': 1. website (www.apache.org/ "site" module) maintenance and improvements/suggestions of userfriendliness of each $tlp sites. I believe the website needs to be ultimately controlled by the infrastructure committee. We used to have a separate list for doing the 'site' module (site-dev@), but people found it too cumbersome and it was shut down and all discussion was moved back to [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, we've tried having 'site' split off and that failed. And, I also believe that each PMC needs to be responsible for their own site. 2. press@ AFAICT, press@ is doin' just fine. I don't see a need to usurp this into a committee. Plus, the main person to talk to here is Sally. She's pretty much only on press@, AFAIK. 3. apache@ (and hidden mail address :-) AFAIK, Ken Coar is the one who responds to these. He has, on several occasions, declined offers of assistance - this has been a semi-frequent topic of discussion on infrastructure@, but the outcome has always been the same. Perhaps he'd be willing to change his mind now... 4. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think these two represent a poor trend in that they'd move away from TLP control to centralized control. I can't disagree with that enough. The PMC needs to responsible for this type of stuff. 6. Marketing 7. (Newsletter) If you want to group these two together, that'd be fine. Call it 'Publicity'. 'Communications Committee': 1. apmail@ 2. supervise of [EMAIL PROTECTED] lists 3. supervise of [EMAIL PROTECTED] lists (community, committer, announce, etc.) Absolutely not. This is the infrastructure committee's responsibility. Proper operation of the website and mailing lists is the responsibility of that committee. It currently delegates these responsibilities into root@ and apmail@ participants. I don't think you've made a compelling argument that the current situation is broken and worth splitting up into new committees. 4. Coaching (mentoring?) of developers/committers/members Perhaps incubator, but I'm not clear what you mean. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
--On Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:44 AM +0900 Tetsuya Kitahata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ?? ... press@ can't be found at http://www.apache.org/mail/ neither eyebrowse. Where can i find the archive (log), by the way? press@ is not a public list. It is the place where PR firms can (and do) contact us. Yet, the content of those messages are not public information. 'Public Relations Committee': 1. website (www.apache.org/ "site" module) maintenance and improvements/suggestions of userfriendliness of each $tlp sites. I believe the website needs to be ultimately controlled by the infrastructure committee. We used to have a separate list for doing the 'site' module (site-dev@), but people found it too cumbersome and it was shut down and all discussion was moved back to [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, we've tried having 'site' split off and that failed. And, I also believe that each PMC needs to be responsible for their own site. 2. press@ AFAICT, press@ is doin' just fine. I don't see a need to usurp this into a committee. Plus, the main person to talk to here is Sally. She's pretty much only on press@, AFAIK. 3. apache@ (and hidden mail address :-) AFAIK, Ken Coar is the one who responds to these. He has, on several occasions, declined offers of assistance - this has been a semi-frequent topic of discussion on infrastructure@, but the outcome has always been the same. Perhaps he'd be willing to change his mind now... 4. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think these two represent a poor trend in that they'd move away from TLP control to centralized control. I can't disagree with that enough. The PMC needs to responsible for this type of stuff. 6. Marketing 7. (Newsletter) If you want to group these two together, that'd be fine. Call it 'Publicity'. 'Communications Committee': 1. apmail@ 2. supervise of [EMAIL PROTECTED] lists 3. supervise of [EMAIL PROTECTED] lists (community, committer, announce, etc.) Absolutely not. This is the infrastructure committee's responsibility. Proper operation of the website and mailing lists is the responsibility of that committee. It currently delegates these responsibilities into root@ and apmail@ participants. I don't think you've made a compelling argument that the current situation is broken and worth splitting up into new committees. 4. Coaching (mentoring?) of developers/committers/members Perhaps incubator, but I'm not clear what you mean. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:32:49 -0700 (PDT) (Subject: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)) Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. ?? ... press@ can't be found at http://www.apache.org/mail/ neither eyebrowse. Where can i find the archive (log), by the way? -- I think it would be reasonable to create 'Public Relations Committee': 1. website (www.apache.org/ "site" module) maintainance and improvements/suggestions of userfriendliness of each $tlp sites. 2. press@ 3. apache@ (and hidden mail address :-) 4. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6. Marketing 7. (Newsletter) 'Communications Committee': 1. apmail@ 2. supervise of [EMAIL PROTECTED] lists 3. supervise of [EMAIL PROTECTED] lists (community, committer, announce, etc.) 4. Coaching (mentoring?) of developers/committers/members 5. (Newsletter) 6. More to be come? Thoughts? -- Tetsuya. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) P.S. Public_Relations/Communications are tightly related to "right-limbic brain", OTOH, Infrastructure is tightly related to "left-limbic brain". Just a "preference" of the way of thiking and behaviour. This explains why most of developers do not prefer the term "marketing", as a matter of fact :-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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]
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: 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: 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]
