Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

[Joe Schaefer]

Running to the board every time there is a lack of consensus about a candidate 
is not appropriate governance at Apache.  The fact that PMC members are 
afforded certain RIGHTS, including the right to stop the train on a personnel 
promotion, is an important aspect of maintaining proper checks and balances 
within the project itself.
Not to belabor the whole question about the role of diversity in this org, the 
fact is that once a PMC reaches a size significantly greater than the original 
crop of developers, conflict happens.  Sometimes it means a single person is 
not sufficiently aligned with the rest of the team in terms of core values and 
principles about personnel promotions, and sometimes the group is mired in 
groupthink and the sole voice of reason can effectively block bad decisions 
from happening to the project.  Either way, diversity happens, and it's not 
always universally positive for the collective wellbeing of the group.  At 
least not in the short run.
But most of the time, it's resolvable to the satisfaction of everyone in the 
project.  I've never seen a veto issued as a permanent objection to a 
candidate, 99% of the time the vetoer is simply saying "not yet, IMO".And that 
"not yet" opinion can stand according to the bylaws of the larger projects all 
of whom have found constructive ways of restoring the group to consensus 
decisions about personnel over the full spectrum of time.
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017, 3:59:05 PM EDT, Niclas Hedhman  
wrote:That's reassuring, but how does that relate to defaulting to vetoes for
personnel?

Your statement about Board intervening could be said for Joe's/Ted's claim
about "letting the minority be heard" as well... and doesn't support or
undermine the use of vetoes for personnel.

Cheers



On Apr 5, 2017 07:49, "Marvin Humphrey"  wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
>
> > Vetoes can become very contentious, and I don't really buy the arguments
> > presented in favor of using it. To me a negative use is a BDFL-type
> > leader/founder preventing active contributors from getting a say in a
> > project.
>
> If a personnel vote is contended, and it doesn't show up in a Board
> report, the PMC Chair is not upholding their responsibilities and
> should be sacked. But even if it does get omitted, at least one
> Director is probably scanning each project's private list once per
> quarter and will likely flag the issue.
>
> Contended personnel votes are not common. The Board has enough
> bandwidth to review them and curtail egregious abuse.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
>
>

Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

[Joe Schaefer]

No the president is definitely not part of the problem Niclas.  We're 
discussing the delivery mechanism for the most part, as well as reasoning about 
why some people insist on having an officer listed as the "ultimate" reporting 
mechanism.



My own experience dealing with sexual harassment reports when I was in graduate 
school is that the reporters felt more comfortable reporting to people like me 
who had relatively little formality in our power or position, because what they 
were looking for was not a formal reprimand, but simply to have the misbehavior 
stopped, without risk of retribution towards the reporter.  The higher you go 
up the formal ladder, the less likely you will be successful from the 
reporter's standpoint in achieving a positive outcome "from their perspective". 
  Again it's about what's in the reporter's best interests: sometimes all they 
want is a shoulder to cry on, and some empathy for their plight.  If we can 
positively change the situation for the better that's great, but it certainly 
doesn't require a formal title at Apache to achieve that goal, most of the 
time.  But when it does, that can always inform the discussion with the 
ombudsperson instead of being the starting point for a report.



On Friday, May 27, 2016 6:17 AM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote:


Is a president-private@ mail forward out of the question? If the president
is part of the problem, then inform to send to board-private@ instead?

Niclas

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:

> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Joe Schaefer
> <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Roman,
> > I've been beating the archiving problem with president@ like a dead
> horse for the past week- what
> > on earth have you been reading to avoid that reality?
>
> Archiving per se is not a problem. If the archive is only available to
> the board I'm border line ok with that.
> What I didn't know (and it didn't come up in your emails) is that
> there could be other folks having access
> to the content of president@ who may or may not be on the board.
> That's a big, huge problem.
>
> > Furthermore, I doubt president@ has an associated qmail owner file,
> which means any addresses listed in that alias that go to domains whose
> mail servers do strict SPF checks will BOUNCE email from major email
> providers who publish such rules, and those bounce mails may wind up being
> DROPPED by Apache's qmail server since it's attempt to deliver the bounce
> mail back to the sender may also be REJECTED by the original sending domain.
>
> That is also a good point.
>
> > All of this leads to problems that, while some are fixable, others are
> simply not.
> > We need a better strategy, and it should be collaborative rather than
> dictatorial.
>
> Not sure what you mean, but as I said ideally I'd like it to be an
> alias for an officer
> appointed by the board. That's my MVP. What Shane suggested builds up on
> that
> and may provide an even better solution.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.

>



-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java

Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

[Joe Schaefer]

To a native English reader, Shane's commentary is perfectly aligned with 
Marvin's patch.  There are absolutely no gaps in direction despite your fierce 
irrational opposition to having a pair of board members try to get something 
meaningful accomplished for the foundation.
How about letting people who want to fix this have a go at it without further 
obstruction and obfuscation, Roman? 

On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:35 PM, Joe Schaefer 
<joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
 

 Here is what Shane said:"Emails to president@ (as far as I can tell) go to an 
alias which
forwards to Ross (and EVP, and possibly someone else), as well as going
to an archived mailbox which I and others can access (not sure if it's
just a group of officers & board, or if this archive is Member access).

Happy for someone from infra to point out the specific technical
details, but no, if we want a fully confidential CoC reporting method,
in my mind president@ is *not* sufficient for the long term.

I would prefer for President, EVP, directors to agree on a single email
alias that is an unarchived alias, with a published list of the specific
ASF Officers or Members that it goes to directly (names to be approved
by President).

"Note the bit about members staffing the alias.  Nothing in common with 
anything you have said despite your shoddy reading and argumentation skills. 

    On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:31 PM, Joe Schaefer 
<joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
 

 Here was your reply to me when I first pointed out the deficiencies with 
president@.  So much for the difficult to understand flowery prose, you keep 
changing your stripes with each passing hour:

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Joseph Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Having a foundation wide CoC is great, but as to whether president@ is 
> effective I have
> never seen the board report which indicates that it is actually being used 
> and things are
> happening with those reports (if any).
>
> Rather than a generic officer address I suggest a dedicated alias with named 
> people in
> the CoC responsible for follow up. Expectations of confidentiality need to be 
> communicated
> because I believe we still archive the president@ alias.

Joe, thank you for this suggestion. This is precisely the kind of
actionable AND non-trivial
suggestions that so far have been lacking on this thread.

Shall we fork it into a separate thread to get a closure? Show original message 
   On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> 
wrote:
 

 On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here's what I wrote to you on members@ Roman:
>
> """
> You're overlooking the archiving problem with president@ Roman.
> That we tell people in the CoC that a report to that channel is available
> to roughly 600 people unknown to them is needed if we are going to
> not paper over the fact that it's really not what a normal person would
> consider "confidential" despite the language in the CoC.  Much less the
> additional hundred or so unknown people on a pmc list who would have
> access to the report if it were made to private@pmc.
> """
>
> Hard to have an intelligent conversation with you Roman when only one of us
> is paying attention to what the other has said.

It would be much easier to have an intelligent conversation with me,
Joe, if your
english prose was structured along the lines of what Shane wrote to me.

I understand your desire for emphatic, floury language, but what you
don't realize
is that you make it very difficult to distill data points from your
paragraph by employing
that kind of language.

Thanks,
Roman.






  

Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

[Joe Schaefer]

Here is what Shane said:"Emails to president@ (as far as I can tell) go to an 
alias which
forwards to Ross (and EVP, and possibly someone else), as well as going
to an archived mailbox which I and others can access (not sure if it's
just a group of officers & board, or if this archive is Member access).

Happy for someone from infra to point out the specific technical
details, but no, if we want a fully confidential CoC reporting method,
in my mind president@ is *not* sufficient for the long term.

I would prefer for President, EVP, directors to agree on a single email
alias that is an unarchived alias, with a published list of the specific
ASF Officers or Members that it goes to directly (names to be approved
by President).

"Note the bit about members staffing the alias.  Nothing in common with 
anything you have said despite your shoddy reading and argumentation skills. 

On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:31 PM, Joe Schaefer 
<joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
 

 Here was your reply to me when I first pointed out the deficiencies with 
president@.  So much for the difficult to understand flowery prose, you keep 
changing your stripes with each passing hour:

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Joseph Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Having a foundation wide CoC is great, but as to whether president@ is 
> effective I have
> never seen the board report which indicates that it is actually being used 
> and things are
> happening with those reports (if any).
>
> Rather than a generic officer address I suggest a dedicated alias with named 
> people in
> the CoC responsible for follow up. Expectations of confidentiality need to be 
> communicated
> because I believe we still archive the president@ alias.

Joe, thank you for this suggestion. This is precisely the kind of
actionable AND non-trivial
suggestions that so far have been lacking on this thread.

Shall we fork it into a separate thread to get a closure? Show original message 
   On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> 
wrote:
 

 On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here's what I wrote to you on members@ Roman:
>
> """
> You're overlooking the archiving problem with president@ Roman.
> That we tell people in the CoC that a report to that channel is available
> to roughly 600 people unknown to them is needed if we are going to
> not paper over the fact that it's really not what a normal person would
> consider "confidential" despite the language in the CoC.  Much less the
> additional hundred or so unknown people on a pmc list who would have
> access to the report if it were made to private@pmc.
> """
>
> Hard to have an intelligent conversation with you Roman when only one of us
> is paying attention to what the other has said.

It would be much easier to have an intelligent conversation with me,
Joe, if your
english prose was structured along the lines of what Shane wrote to me.

I understand your desire for emphatic, floury language, but what you
don't realize
is that you make it very difficult to distill data points from your
paragraph by employing
that kind of language.

Thanks,
Roman.




  

Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

[Joe Schaefer]

Here was your reply to me when I first pointed out the deficiencies with 
president@.  So much for the difficult to understand flowery prose, you keep 
changing your stripes with each passing hour:

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Joseph Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Having a foundation wide CoC is great, but as to whether president@ is 
> effective I have
> never seen the board report which indicates that it is actually being used 
> and things are
> happening with those reports (if any).
>
> Rather than a generic officer address I suggest a dedicated alias with named 
> people in
> the CoC responsible for follow up. Expectations of confidentiality need to be 
> communicated
> because I believe we still archive the president@ alias.

Joe, thank you for this suggestion. This is precisely the kind of
actionable AND non-trivial
suggestions that so far have been lacking on this thread.

Shall we fork it into a separate thread to get a closure? Show original message 
   On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> 
wrote:
 

 On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here's what I wrote to you on members@ Roman:
>
> """
> You're overlooking the archiving problem with president@ Roman.
> That we tell people in the CoC that a report to that channel is available
> to roughly 600 people unknown to them is needed if we are going to
> not paper over the fact that it's really not what a normal person would
> consider "confidential" despite the language in the CoC.  Much less the
> additional hundred or so unknown people on a pmc list who would have
> access to the report if it were made to private@pmc.
> """
>
> Hard to have an intelligent conversation with you Roman when only one of us
> is paying attention to what the other has said.

It would be much easier to have an intelligent conversation with me,
Joe, if your
english prose was structured along the lines of what Shane wrote to me.

I understand your desire for emphatic, floury language, but what you
don't realize
is that you make it very difficult to distill data points from your
paragraph by employing
that kind of language.

Thanks,
Roman.


  

Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

[Joe Schaefer]

Here's what I wrote to you on members@ Roman:
"""You're overlooking the archiving problem with president@ Roman.That we tell 
people in the CoC that a report to that channel is availableto roughly 600 
people unknown to them is needed if we are going tonot paper over the fact that 
it's really not what a normal person wouldconsider "confidential" despite the 
language in the CoC.  Much less theadditional hundred or so unknown people on a 
pmc list who would haveaccess to the report if it were made to private@pmc."""
Hard to have an intelligent conversation with you Roman when only one of us is 
paying attention to what the other has said.
 

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 8:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> 
wrote:
 

 On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Joe Schaefer
<joe_schae...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Roman,
> I've been beating the archiving problem with president@ like a dead horse for 
> the past week- what
> on earth have you been reading to avoid that reality?

Archiving per se is not a problem. If the archive is only available to
the board I'm border line ok with that.
What I didn't know (and it didn't come up in your emails) is that
there could be other folks having access
to the content of president@ who may or may not be on the board.
That's a big, huge problem.

> Furthermore, I doubt president@ has an associated qmail owner file, which 
> means any addresses listed in that alias that go to domains whose mail 
> servers do strict SPF checks will BOUNCE email from major email providers who 
> publish such rules, and those bounce mails may wind up being DROPPED by 
> Apache's qmail server since it's attempt to deliver the bounce mail back to 
> the sender may also be REJECTED by the original sending domain.

That is also a good point.

> All of this leads to problems that, while some are fixable, others are simply 
> not.
> We need a better strategy, and it should be collaborative rather than 
> dictatorial.

Not sure what you mean, but as I said ideally I'd like it to be an
alias for an officer
appointed by the board. That's my MVP. What Shane suggested builds up on that
and may provide an even better solution.

Thanks,
Roman.

  

Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

[Joe Schaefer]

Actually it's more about senders with strict SPF rules that the qmail owner 
files will correct for.  It would be particularly bad for such email to get 
lost in transit. 

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 10:16 PM, Joe Schaefer 
<joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
 

 Patch looks pretty straightforward Marvin.  However if we're going to use 
apache.org personal addresses, those volunteers should ask infrastructure to 
create qmail owner files for their accounts, to ensure that all emails sent 
from providers using DKIM and the like will be successfully delivered.
 

    On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 9:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey 
<mar...@rectangular.com> wrote:
 

 On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Joe Schaefer
> <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> ...We have options for phasing out president@, from simply using one of
>> Ross's personal addresses, to creating a dedicated alias of the
>> ombuds(man)@ variety...

This is a nice contained task which fixes a concrete issue, and an opportunity
to make some tangible progress.

> If I wanted to report something confidential I think I'd like to know
> exactly who gets those messages.
>
> So the best might be to simply list the @apache.org IDs of people who
> volunteer to receive such messages and process them with the required care,
> so that people who want to report something can choose who to report to.
> People can then use http://people.apache.org/phonebook.html to find out what
> roles those people have at the ASF.

We already have a set of volunteers who were willing to serve behind the ombud
alias.  Hopefully we can confirm their willingness to add their names to a
public list.

Here's a simple patch:

https://paste.apache.org/3AuO

Thoughts

I don't think the ASF Code of Conduct page has any specific maintainer
attached to it beyond the Board itself.  I figure that once we have consensus
on a patch and a volunteer list, I can run the change by board@apache for
completeness, then apply.

Marvin Humphrey




  

Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

[Joe Schaefer]

Patch looks pretty straightforward Marvin.  However if we're going to use 
apache.org personal addresses, those volunteers should ask infrastructure to 
create qmail owner files for their accounts, to ensure that all emails sent 
from providers using DKIM and the like will be successfully delivered.
 

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 9:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey 
<mar...@rectangular.com> wrote:
 

 On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Joe Schaefer
> <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> ...We have options for phasing out president@, from simply using one of
>> Ross's personal addresses, to creating a dedicated alias of the
>> ombuds(man)@ variety...

This is a nice contained task which fixes a concrete issue, and an opportunity
to make some tangible progress.

> If I wanted to report something confidential I think I'd like to know
> exactly who gets those messages.
>
> So the best might be to simply list the @apache.org IDs of people who
> volunteer to receive such messages and process them with the required care,
> so that people who want to report something can choose who to report to.
> People can then use http://people.apache.org/phonebook.html to find out what
> roles those people have at the ASF.

We already have a set of volunteers who were willing to serve behind the ombud
alias.  Hopefully we can confirm their willingness to add their names to a
public list.

Here's a simple patch:

https://paste.apache.org/3AuO

Thoughts

I don't think the ASF Code of Conduct page has any specific maintainer
attached to it beyond the Board itself.  I figure that once we have consensus
on a patch and a volunteer list, I can run the change by board@apache for
completeness, then apply.

Marvin Humphrey


  

Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

[Joe Schaefer]

Personally I'd like to see the CoC addressed as well, particularly in regards 
to the use of president@ as a potential reporting channel for abuse.
The CoC has been in place for a while now, and we have a rough guide from Ross 
to indicate that president@ as a reporting channel is underused compared with 
other avenues which are being used.  My personal problem with the president@ 
channel is that it is archived and so member-readable, which contradicts the 
actual claims made about the channel on the CoC.
We have options for phasing out president@, from simply using one of Ross's 
personal addresses, to creating a dedicated alias of the ombuds(man)@ variety.  
I prefer the latter, not to intermediate Ross who otherwise does an excellent 
job of handling issues,but to ensure a small team of volunteers is in the 
pipeline to provide some stability beyond Ross' tenure as president.  IOW 
there's no reason Ross couldn't be one of the ombuds(man)@ volunteers, should 
he wish to.
Ideally the communication channel is described as fully confidential between 
the parties alone- no archiving or any other means of unintentionally 
increasing exposure of the issue beyond what the reporter is comfortable with.  
Also it'd be good to provide profiles of each volunteer on a dedicated page, 
along with personal contact information as an alternate way of communicating an 
issue.
Thoughts?
 

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 5:49 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:
 

 On 05/22/2016 11:35 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Here's a really good suggestion from one of our other lists...
> 
> "I wish we could hear from all the women who haven't come to Apache"

(pardon the waffling below...)

I am left wonderingcould we perhaps extend this a bit?

We know there's definitely an issue of women being proportionately
underrepresented in most FLOSS communities - what about other groups
that may be in the same boat, but doesn't have the same visibility here?

Would it make sense to broaden our search a bit and see if we can figure
out if there are other areas that are just as bad (or maybe even worse off)?

There is plenty of data surrounding how the world is made up of
different groups of people, whether it be gender, color, orientations,
faith, mental state etc, but none that I could immediately find on FLOSS
communities - and I can't help wondering if there are other groups just
as underrepresented out there (I could think of a few that might be, but
I have no data whatsoever to support my claims!).

I'm not saying we should start 100 different outreach programs or try to
be the perfect fit for everyone from day one...but it sure would be
interesting to see which groups we actually feel welcoming to, and which
we miss by a mile.

Does any such data on FLOSS communities in general already exist?

I know this may irk some people slightly, trying to open up that big bag
of profiles, but we won't really know if we are inadvertently hostile or
unwelcoming to certain parts of the world's population until we start
asking some questions.

Maybe some sort of survey on the matter? I would naturally prefer a
completely anonymous survey if we chose that route.

With regards,
Daniel.

> 
> I'm not crediting because it came from an internal list, but I am repeating 
> it as I agree with this excellent suggestion. If there are people in this 
> group here please feel free to reach out onlist or, if you feel you want to 
> say things better said privately, try Sharan who started the thread (or 
> anyone else you feel comfortable mailing with your thoughts).
> 
> Ross
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ross Gardler
>> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 8:39 AM
>> To: dev@community.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?
>>
>> We do not have current strategies. We've tried many things in the past but
>> they've never really succeeded. I'll not speculate on why, it's a complex 
>> issue.
>>
>> What I will say (with my Presidents hat firmly on), is that if folks come up
>> with a strategy that is in line with our charitable mission then please don't
>> hesitate to ask for any support you need.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Sharan Foga [mailto:sharan.f...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 8:18 AM
>>> To: dev@community.apache.org
>>> Subject: Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?
>>>
>>> Hi All
>>>
>>> I'm interested in finding out how we could encourage more women to
>>> participate on Apache projects. It's a discussion topic that came up
>>> last week while I was at Apachecon. My understanding is that we don't
>>> have any current strategies in place so I think it could be good to
>>> look at gathering some ideas about how to tackle the problem and also
>>> hear about any lessons learned from any previous or similar strategies.
>>>
>>> What do people think?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Sharan
>>>
> 



  

Re: [VOTE] Replace projects.apache.org with projects-new.apache.org

[Joe Schaefer]

LGTM, but don't forget to update the www.apache.org homepageto base it on the 
new stuff instead of the DOAP files. 

 On Friday, March 6, 2015 10:47 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) 
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
   

 +1 please do so :)

++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++






-Original Message-
From: Mike Drob md...@mdrob.com
Reply-To: dev@community.apache.org dev@community.apache.org
Date: Friday, March 6, 2015 at 12:50 PM
To: dev@community.apache.org dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Replace projects.apache.org with
projects-new.apache.org

Minor design nit: the content boxes should either be centered or do a
better job of auto filling the available horizontal space. Otherwise, it
looks spiffy, despite being fairly tiny on my monitor.

Would also like to see the releases page sort by date by default, and show
more than 10 entries. This is not a reason to block the switch though.

+0.9 in current state, +1 once my comments are addressed.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Rich Bowen rbo...@redhat.com wrote:
  I'd like for us to go ahead and replace projects.apache.org with
  projects-new.apache.org.

 -0, do we need all these js/css/cookies from google(apis)?
 I never had to disable noscript for anything than a.o on a.o until
 then, whitelisting *.gg.c annoys me a bit...




   

Y! DMARC munging activated here

[Joe Schaefer]

I've enabled DMARC munging here to allow myself
and Melissa to post deliverable messages.  Contact
infrastructure@ if you feel strongly that this change
was unwarranted.

You can see the only visible impact of the change
right in this very message- my From: address has
an INVALID suffix.  This however will pose no operational
difference to how you can reply to this email to reach me,
since Y! provides a Reply-To header that remains intact.

HTH

Re: Project Culture and Commit Rights

[Joe Schaefer]

The problem with that is that we don't get
any of the benefits out of simplification
of our rulesets: namely more comprehensible
behavior out of the server when a commit
has been blocked and someone needs help,
and it doesn't imply that the org has made
any cultural shifts towards a more open infra,
which defeats a lot of the point of the exercise
from my POV.


Let me be clear tho, I have always argued that
projects have the exclusive right to control
access to their codebase.  However the means
by which that control is exercised depends on
many factors, and we shouldn't enshrine an
unexamined mode of technical operation into perpetuity
just because we've always done it that way.

Relaxing ACL's simply represents a more practical,
and more modern, way of maximizing the utility
you get out of a centralized version control tool
like Subversion.  Projects shouldn't balk at
polite suggestions to modernize, even if we always
allow themselves the option of declining to participate.






 From: Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org
To: dev@community.apache.org 
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: Project Culture and Commit Rights
 
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
 ...There's a weaker form of this idea that looks at two populations of
 potential contributors: the members of the Apache Software Foundation
 (members@) and all of the people who have been granted commit rights on all
 of the projects (committers@). Projects that don't feel prepared to offer
 commit-on-demand to the world at large might feel inclined to do so for
 (one or both of) these groups...

As the ASF aims to give PMCs as much freedom as possible, I'd favor a
solution where PMCs can decide themselves who they give write
permission to their code repositories.

Basing this on groups, project A could say that it's friends with
projects B and C, and as such allow all people who can write to B and
C to write to A as well, based on group authorizations.

We used to do that with Cocoon, where B and C were Lenya and Forrest -
as sibling projects, we felt that those folks should be able to commit
small fixes directly without asking, but they were expected to ask
before making any substantial changes to our code.

A PMC could then decide to give write access to all ASF members, all
committers, etc. Letting PMCs make this decision avoids requiring the
whole ASF (that's 150 projects today) to agree on this, which is in
line with how we usually handle things - modularization vs. requiring
everybody to agree.

-Bertrand

New CMS features for contributors

[Joe Schaefer]

It's never been easier to get started with the CMS as an
anonymous contributor than it is right now:

    http://s.apache.org/cms-anonymous-clone

Please pass this info along to other CMS based projects
to encourage contributors to install and use the CMS bookmarklet
and contribute directly to CMS project websites.

Thanks!

Re: Shared Calendars

[Joe Schaefer]

Python or Perl scripts are preferred from an infrastructure
standpoint, as we already have the skillset capable of managing
those types of works.



- Original Message 
 From: Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org
 To: dev@community.apache.org
 Sent: Fri, May 20, 2011 1:30:08 PM
 Subject: Re: Shared Calendars
 
 On 20/05/2011 15:34, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
  Yes, sounds  better.
  Finally we simply would need an iCAL feed aggregator  maybe similar
  to planet.apache.org
  Is the  code for planet somehow extensible for this task? Might be a start
  
  The python code behind PlanetApache is open source:
   http://www.intertwingly.net/code/venus/
  
  A search for  ical aggregator turned up a simple looking python script:
  https://github.com/mhagander/icalaggregator (untested)
  
  oh  oh python... i am out.
 
 If you have the desire to make this work then pick  your language and make it 
work. Don't worry about any kind of tight integration  with Planet Apache or 
anything else. We can work from them.
 
 My response  above was merely an answer to your question. It is not meant to 
imply a  restriction on the way it is implemented.
 
 I'd really like to see this  happen, I think it would be good to have ASF 
 wide 
calendars where each project  manages its own entries in whatever way they 
like.
 
 Ross
 

Re: [proposal] integrating womAn@a.o into an Apache code of practice

[Joe Schaefer]

- Original Message 

 From: Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org
 To: dev@community.apache.org
 Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 11:54:50 AM
 Subject: Re: [proposal] integrating wo...@a.o into an Apache code of practice
 
 On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote:
  ...I like  the idea that Apache, like all upstanding meritocracies,
  doesn't think  of either gender as a 'special case'. Committers are
  just committers,  not boy committers or girl committers...
 
 Absolutely agree with that,  thanks for your comment.

Yes, but... the reason to put together special initiatives for
underrepresented groups is to address systemic/environmental
problems that may be causing the underrepresentation.  IOW I
don't mind the fact that we tried to do some of that with
the women@ list, even tho it obviously didn't gel.  I think
we should remain open to future initiatives, even those that
present potential corrective biases which favor underrepresented
groups.


  

Re: [proposal] integrating womAn@a.o into an Apache code of practice

[Joe Schaefer]

Indeed, and on my birthday no less.  Good read.



- Original Message 
 From: Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org
 To: dev@community.apache.org
 Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 12:31:56 PM
 Subject: Re: [proposal] integrating wo...@a.o into an Apache code of practice
 
 On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com  wrote:
  ...I think
  we should remain open to future initiatives,  even those that
  present potential corrective biases which favor  underrepresented
  groups
 
 I agree with that.
 
 About  women, I found this article very  interesting:
 http://jolieodell.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/women-in-tech/
 
 -Bertrand
 


  

Re: [proposal] integrating womAn@a.o into an Apache code of practice

[Joe Schaefer]

FWIW my takeaway from the article is that mentoring is a more
effective way to facilitate change than any other type of 
social program.  I didn't put much stock into the child-raising
argument as it doesn't really apply to us: we deal with adults.


- Original Message 
 From: Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
 To: dev@community.apache.org
 Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 12:49:54 PM
 Subject: Re: [proposal] integrating wo...@a.o into an Apache code of practice
 
 Feh. Another screed about raising children from someone who has,  apparently,
 never met one.
 
 Every parent I know has had the same  experience: hand some infant female a
 truck, and she rejects it. I'm  carefully choosing my words to avoid claiming
 that this is universal, as  opposed to extremely common.
 
 My daughters were no exception. Attracted  like magnets, initially, to dolls
 -- and later interested in a variety of  subjects. The ballet dancer will
 probably not write the next Linux, but the  jury is still out the younger
 one.
 
 The author just retypes the same  old tired stuff about kids and toys, when
 reality is much more  complicated.
 
 People are born, it seems, with a complicated set of  predispositions, some
 of which are more or less strongly related to gender.  Toy stores sell what
 people buy, and some of what people buy is what their  kids pop out wanting.
 
 On the other hand, the claim that pre-age-seven  play habits are causative of
 later decisions and preferences is supported in  this piece only by quoting a
 Jesuit. Even by the low standards of social  science, that's weak. It's also
 stupid, thoughless, determinism. It never  ceases to amaze me that any
 suggestion of generic influence rejects to the  point of offense, but the
 same writers assert that environmental effects are  cast into immutable
 stone.
 
 Maybe women are just smarter and have  figured out that they can get more
 money for less work in  marketing?
 
 On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.comwrote:
 
   Indeed, and on my birthday no less.  Good  read.
 
 
 
  - Original Message 
From: Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org
To: dev@community.apache.org
Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 12:31:56 PM
   Subject: Re: [proposal]  integrating wo...@a.o into an Apache code of
  practice
  
   On Thu, Sep  16, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com
wrote:
...I think
we should remain open to  future initiatives,  even those that
present potential  corrective biases which favor  underrepresented
 groups
  
   I agree with that.
  
About  women, I found this article very  interesting:
http://jolieodell.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/women-in-tech/
   
   -Bertrand
  
 
 
 
 
 


  

Re: Contributing positively to a meritocracy (was Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o)

[Joe Schaefer]

- Original Message 

 From: Anjana G Bhattacharjee a.g.bhattachar...@gmail.com
 To: Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com
 Cc: dev@community.apache.org
 Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 6:40:27 AM
 Subject: Re: Contributing positively to a meritocracy (was Re: [DISCUSS]  
[VOTE] roll wo...@a.o into d...@community.a.o)
 
 Hi Ted,
 
 Thanks for being willing to cc your reply to women@ - guess you  got the same
 response to that one too, eh ?
 
 Now, who do you figure it  was that had been willing to perform that
 operation ? And with what manner of  sentiment ? And do such things matter
 for a next time around, for a next  possible circumstance ?

I have no idea what you're going on about, but I closed the women@ list
yesterday in response to a valid ticket being opened against the INFRA jira
roughly 2 weeks ago.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2883