Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Muellners ApS]

I can see that this project community has differences(architectural,
design, direction, methods, concepts, processes, interpretation of
regulations, platform's dev lifecycle).

Differences amongst humans have almost always resulted in a dialogue which
should now bridge them.


Awasum, thanks for informing me on the Apache Con 2022 prep, I am afraid I
might not be able to participate in the laid out process. I don't feel it
is a fitting thing to do if Muellners Foundation peers like to submit
proposals to this conf(they have some incredible ideas) and a Board Member
is also part of the volunteer driven process. It's not how I see use of
human life.


I can begin to see that the members with opposing views have started
discussing with empathy, patience & more openness. Laughter is back! I will
now rescind my objection, hoping that under-representation improves with
time.



I would definitely like to sponsor the Con efforts next year, but for that,
in principle, we will closely understand how this charity actually works
e.g with public records - ($3.5 million asset book, ~$2 million annual
donations, 6000 volunteers, citing its recent year's IRS filing

).


Thanks to those who responded to my statements with qualified data, and
most importantly thanks to those who highlighted their sporadic views, &
those who expressed underlying variables in their minds, vis a vis the
state of community governance, project CN, & this thread.


In particular, thanks to Myrle Krantz for expressing her human side on
this. The “under dev” CN version was sustained on such spirits, last year.
Saransh is also one of them, contributing to this project even before ASF
incubated this, as is Bruce and any newcomer, also many “others" who we
should never call "childish" and "little".


This project's present(both 1.x & CN) is unclear to me, but as we bridge
these differences, the future is very bright. Everything else will take
shape.


Change is life.

Best Regards

On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 at 10.15, Saransh Sharma  wrote:

> Hey,
>
> Myrle thanks for sharing his profile and his work. I am not denying and
> closing my eyes from your work and his work. The idea is pretty wild that
> we are proposing, I think it needs a different setting and perhaps context.
>
> I think, so tell me, If i have to contribute to the project in terms of
> changing something from the ground up, how should we do that? How do we
> find out that there are some technical limitations to the existing project
> That does not mean you did not do a great job. I would like to point this
> out, this is an effect of time things improve.
>
> Alexander, refer to last year discussion that we had at the Apache Con
> about Improvement Proposal, our story was based on an individual, not any
> group, it was about solving problems related to development.
>
> For an eg: We have done some work on the generators that automatically
> generates boilerplate for Fineract CN templates saving time for developers,
> but the problem is where do we make this PR since there is no repo that
> matches the idea. (I mean give us the repo / or should we just make a PR on
> the template?)
>
> Does this sound disrespectful to you? A generator that generates code
> templates and services to run a functional piece of code. It can create a
> new application, insert another small sub-logic service or update the
> application.
>
> Another instance is of a set of libs that come with Fineract CN, they need
> to be maintained alongside and is a burden for especially developers and
> the community, why don't we make the project lightweight, leaving some
> choices to the developers (there are many libs that do the same work and
> maybe battle-tested already, why re-invent the wheel)
>
>
> As Giorgio pointed out above that we need people or PMC who have developed
> Financial products, that may understand the value behind using a mix of
> toolkits. I think maybe our communication was vague according to you some
> say so, but there are some who do not see it that way. we have a division.
>
> So, I request that we close this thread and move on and work on further
> points that, I have highlighted.
>
> and Alex I think we have backwards compatibility and it actually has been
> tested out, that's why we are proposing changes on the top of the Fineract
> CN, these changes are add on and if someone wishes to use them in the true
> sense of microservices. To add real innovation, we should move towards a
> distributed architecture that allows smart contract deployment then we will
> truly have marketplace of business logic and value that could flow from
> Fineract CN.
>
> PS
> We are here to give grants related to the Fineract CN work ,reach out we
> could get you started on the above points.
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 12:37 PM Myrle Krantz  wrote:
>
>> Saransh,
>>
>> Wikipedia would have helped you on this one.  Greg Stein is one of 

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Saransh Sharma]

Hey,

Myrle thanks for sharing his profile and his work. I am not denying and
closing my eyes from your work and his work. The idea is pretty wild that
we are proposing, I think it needs a different setting and perhaps context.

I think, so tell me, If i have to contribute to the project in terms of
changing something from the ground up, how should we do that? How do we
find out that there are some technical limitations to the existing project
That does not mean you did not do a great job. I would like to point this
out, this is an effect of time things improve.

Alexander, refer to last year discussion that we had at the Apache Con
about Improvement Proposal, our story was based on an individual, not any
group, it was about solving problems related to development.

For an eg: We have done some work on the generators that automatically
generates boilerplate for Fineract CN templates saving time for developers,
but the problem is where do we make this PR since there is no repo that
matches the idea. (I mean give us the repo / or should we just make a PR on
the template?)

Does this sound disrespectful to you? A generator that generates code
templates and services to run a functional piece of code. It can create a
new application, insert another small sub-logic service or update the
application.

Another instance is of a set of libs that come with Fineract CN, they need
to be maintained alongside and is a burden for especially developers and
the community, why don't we make the project lightweight, leaving some
choices to the developers (there are many libs that do the same work and
maybe battle-tested already, why re-invent the wheel)


As Giorgio pointed out above that we need people or PMC who have developed
Financial products, that may understand the value behind using a mix of
toolkits. I think maybe our communication was vague according to you some
say so, but there are some who do not see it that way. we have a division.

So, I request that we close this thread and move on and work on further
points that, I have highlighted.

and Alex I think we have backwards compatibility and it actually has been
tested out, that's why we are proposing changes on the top of the Fineract
CN, these changes are add on and if someone wishes to use them in the true
sense of microservices. To add real innovation, we should move towards a
distributed architecture that allows smart contract deployment then we will
truly have marketplace of business logic and value that could flow from
Fineract CN.

PS
We are here to give grants related to the Fineract CN work ,reach out we
could get you started on the above points.


On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 12:37 PM Myrle Krantz  wrote:

> Saransh,
>
> Wikipedia would have helped you on this one.  Greg Stein is one of the
> earliest members of the Apache Software Foundation.  He was a long time
> board member, including a board chair for five years.  He is currently
> working as Infrastructure Administrator for The ASF where he has contact
> with all 200 project communities.  I'm not certain, but he may not have
> missed a single ASF board call for the last 20 years.  Beyond that Greg was
> VP of Subversion for several years, and he has made significant
> contributions to the Python programming language.  He is also one of the
> incubation mentors for Apache Fineract.  We elected him into that role in
> part to guide us on implementing the Apache way, and we were *honored* that
> he chose to serve our community in that role.
>
> Basically: you just told someone who played a significant role in defining
> the Apache Way as part of his life's work, that he doesn't understand it.
> Hence his reaction.
>
> Best Regards,
> Myrle Krantz
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Stein
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 2:23 AM Greg Stein  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 08:13:54PM +0530, Saransh Sharma wrote:
>> >...
>> > Greg, seems like your understanding is limited, community over code is
>> the
>> > Apache way.
>>
>> Hahahaaa This is one of the funniest things I've read all week.
>>
>> Thank you for the laugh,
>> -g
>>
>

-- 
Thanks and regards,

Saransh Sharma
Research Partner

This mail is governed by Muellners®  IT policy.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as 

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Myrle Krantz]

Saransh,

Wikipedia would have helped you on this one.  Greg Stein is one of the
earliest members of the Apache Software Foundation.  He was a long time
board member, including a board chair for five years.  He is currently
working as Infrastructure Administrator for The ASF where he has contact
with all 200 project communities.  I'm not certain, but he may not have
missed a single ASF board call for the last 20 years.  Beyond that Greg was
VP of Subversion for several years, and he has made significant
contributions to the Python programming language.  He is also one of the
incubation mentors for Apache Fineract.  We elected him into that role in
part to guide us on implementing the Apache way, and we were *honored* that
he chose to serve our community in that role.

Basically: you just told someone who played a significant role in defining
the Apache Way as part of his life's work, that he doesn't understand it.
Hence his reaction.

Best Regards,
Myrle Krantz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Stein


On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 2:23 AM Greg Stein  wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 08:13:54PM +0530, Saransh Sharma wrote:
> >...
> > Greg, seems like your understanding is limited, community over code is
> the
> > Apache way.
>
> Hahahaaa This is one of the funniest things I've read all week.
>
> Thank you for the laugh,
> -g
>

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Saransh Sharma]

I have already opened the thread. Please send your thoughts there .

I agree it’s getting convoluted.

On Sunday, September 26, 2021, Awasum Yannick  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>
> This thread is completely out of topic. Let's move on from this thread as
> it is not convenient for a lot of people.
>
> ApacheCon 2021 just ended. If you have a new point of view on ApacheCon
> and how you can help in planning ApacheCon 2022 Fineract/FinTech Track,
> then work with Javier and Rich to get that going. Write the planners
> mailing list: plann...@apachecon.com and be part of the process.
>
> If you have any questions or proposals on how to improve Apache Fineract
> 1.x or Fineract CN, Please open a new discussion thread. If most of the
> community does not like your proposal, please drop it and look for other
> ways to contribute within the framework of the Apache Software Foundation.
>
> Please...PleasePlease, be polite, respectful, humble and empathetic
> about the way you address people on this public forum.
>
>
> Awasum Yannick.
> PMC Chair, Apache Fineract
>
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 1:23 AM Greg Stein  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 08:13:54PM +0530, Saransh Sharma wrote:
>> >...
>> > Greg, seems like your understanding is limited, community over code is
>> the
>> > Apache way.
>>
>> Hahahaaa This is one of the funniest things I've read all week.
>>
>> Thank you for the laugh,
>> -g
>>
>

-- 
Saransh Sharma
Research Partner

Sent from my phone
This mail is governed by Muellners®  IT policy.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Awasum Yannick]

Hi All,


This thread is completely out of topic. Let's move on from this thread as
it is not convenient for a lot of people.

ApacheCon 2021 just ended. If you have a new point of view on ApacheCon and
how you can help in planning ApacheCon 2022 Fineract/FinTech Track, then
work with Javier and Rich to get that going. Write the planners mailing
list: plann...@apachecon.com and be part of the process.

If you have any questions or proposals on how to improve Apache Fineract
1.x or Fineract CN, Please open a new discussion thread. If most of the
community does not like your proposal, please drop it and look for other
ways to contribute within the framework of the Apache Software Foundation.

Please...PleasePlease, be polite, respectful, humble and empathetic
about the way you address people on this public forum.


Awasum Yannick.
PMC Chair, Apache Fineract

On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 1:23 AM Greg Stein  wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 08:13:54PM +0530, Saransh Sharma wrote:
> >...
> > Greg, seems like your understanding is limited, community over code is
> the
> > Apache way.
>
> Hahahaaa This is one of the funniest things I've read all week.
>
> Thank you for the laugh,
> -g
>

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Greg Stein]

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 08:13:54PM +0530, Saransh Sharma wrote:
>...
> Greg, seems like your understanding is limited, community over code is the
> Apache way.

Hahahaaa This is one of the funniest things I've read all week.

Thank you for the laugh,
-g

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Aleksandar Vidakovic]

Hi Saranch,

... I've been reading this email thread for a while and still can't figure
out what you want. And to be honest: I find it quite distracting. This
discussion started with you complaining about the process of ApacheCon
proposals, but you did this less than 2 days before ApacheCon while you had
months to bring this up before. You claimed that "the community debated
this for some time" (how proposals get approved)... I don't remember any of
this... must have been a subset of the community? Or did this happen
outside of the mailing list? Or maybe I missed it all together (I usually
follow what's happening here)? You claim more openness, but then you invite
people to contact you privately... then you send out some strange "legal
desk" emails that I really didn't appreciate - at all (note: only read the
subject line... after that you lost me); one suggestion here: if you go
that route then you should maybe read a bit more in detail how the ASF
rules are set up before you make incompatible suggestions? Some people
(Rich, Myrle, Greg, Kevin, Jim) tried to explain to you politely the ground
rules of communication in this space and how the mechanics of ApacheCon
work and you dismissed all in a rather rude and pushy fashion (if this is
not your intention then I think you have to do a better job making this
clear). And suddenly you switch to yet another topic (suggesting general
improvements in Fineract 1.x/CN... not even sure if this summarizes what
you intended to say).

What I'd really like to know: why didn't you just participate at the
Fineract BOF sessions at ApacheCon? There was plenty of room to layout
ideas. You said earlier in this thread that "[I] am trying to improvise on
the project"; again not 100% sure what you are trying to say, but it
doesn't sound to me that you have backwards compatibility on your radar...
and I think it's safe to say that this is an important topic for all those
relying on Fineract.

Whatever the intention of this thread was: didn't really work out that well.

One suggestion: why don't you create pull requests and see how that goes
(at least for the source/feature related stuff)? Those are always welcome
and it's far easier that way to find out what works and what doesn't...
without rubbing people the wrong way.

Cheers,

Aleks


On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 9:31 PM Myrle Krantz  wrote:

> As one of the two primary architects of Fineract CN:
>
> It was not buzzword bingo, nor, as Saransh asserted in his ApacheCon 2020
> talk, a "resume-driven" set of decisions.  Those statements are insulting
> and do not promote collaboration nor goodwill.  I would encourage community
> participants to always assume good-will, especially with respect to people
> doing coding work.  We were doing the best work we knew how, and we ran out
> of funding for the open source work.  I personally accepted a wage far
> under my market value for two years of work, because I sincerely believed
> in the work we were doing.  It took me months to accept that it wasn't to
> be.  I then attempted to drive the work forward for several months
> *unpaid*.  In that context, I *really* *really* do not appreciate emails
> like this one.
>
> IMO the idea of Fineract CN is still sound.  But it is also *not* in
> conflict with Fineract.
>
> Claims that Fineract CN has driven the community apart are absurd:
> Fineract CN was never released; most of the community is focused on
> Fineract 1.x;  And I'm here cheering y'all on from the sidelines.  Nobody
> needs to spend time on Fineract CN who doesn't want to, and the people
> spending time on Fineract CN probably aren't interested in Fineract 1.x.
>
> Stop with the attacks already Saransh and Co; it's hurtful and unnecessary.
>
> Best Regards,
> Myrle Krantz
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 9:01 PM Giorgio Zoppi 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> this is scary:
>>
>> Documentation is scattered and use cases other than micro-finance need to
>> be highlighted. There is hardly a senior functional fintech influencer
>> connected to the project at Product engineering level.
>> The CN vs 1.x question would be much better if it had an open answering
>> option, my opinion: CN has driven the community apart, abandoning an
>> existing product that has active users on it and businesses relying on it
>> like that was not a good decision of the project, and also not one made the
>> apache way, it was very much driven by the team at that time pushing people
>> onto a tech stack and buzzword bingo whereas the featureset was forgotten
>> about (in a similar way it happened between Mifos and MifosX). It
>> ultimately drove the efforts of collaboration apart and has resulted in
>> various larger implementers/developer teams forking away.
>>
>>
>> BR,
>> Giorgio.
>>
>>
>>

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Giorgio Zoppi]

My apologies is not such much Apache way this thread.
BR,
Giorgio.

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Myrle Krantz]

As one of the two primary architects of Fineract CN:

It was not buzzword bingo, nor, as Saransh asserted in his ApacheCon 2020
talk, a "resume-driven" set of decisions.  Those statements are insulting
and do not promote collaboration nor goodwill.  I would encourage community
participants to always assume good-will, especially with respect to people
doing coding work.  We were doing the best work we knew how, and we ran out
of funding for the open source work.  I personally accepted a wage far
under my market value for two years of work, because I sincerely believed
in the work we were doing.  It took me months to accept that it wasn't to
be.  I then attempted to drive the work forward for several months
*unpaid*.  In that context, I *really* *really* do not appreciate emails
like this one.

IMO the idea of Fineract CN is still sound.  But it is also *not* in
conflict with Fineract.

Claims that Fineract CN has driven the community apart are absurd: Fineract
CN was never released; most of the community is focused on Fineract 1.x;
And I'm here cheering y'all on from the sidelines.  Nobody needs to spend
time on Fineract CN who doesn't want to, and the people spending time on
Fineract CN probably aren't interested in Fineract 1.x.

Stop with the attacks already Saransh and Co; it's hurtful and unnecessary.

Best Regards,
Myrle Krantz

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 9:01 PM Giorgio Zoppi 
wrote:

> Hi all,
> this is scary:
>
> Documentation is scattered and use cases other than micro-finance need to
> be highlighted. There is hardly a senior functional fintech influencer
> connected to the project at Product engineering level.
> The CN vs 1.x question would be much better if it had an open answering
> option, my opinion: CN has driven the community apart, abandoning an
> existing product that has active users on it and businesses relying on it
> like that was not a good decision of the project, and also not one made the
> apache way, it was very much driven by the team at that time pushing people
> onto a tech stack and buzzword bingo whereas the featureset was forgotten
> about (in a similar way it happened between Mifos and MifosX). It
> ultimately drove the efforts of collaboration apart and has resulted in
> various larger implementers/developer teams forking away.
>
>
> BR,
> Giorgio.
>
>
>

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Giorgio Zoppi]

Hi all,
this is scary:

Documentation is scattered and use cases other than micro-finance need to
be highlighted. There is hardly a senior functional fintech influencer
connected to the project at Product engineering level.
The CN vs 1.x question would be much better if it had an open answering
option, my opinion: CN has driven the community apart, abandoning an
existing product that has active users on it and businesses relying on it
like that was not a good decision of the project, and also not one made the
apache way, it was very much driven by the team at that time pushing people
onto a tech stack and buzzword bingo whereas the featureset was forgotten
about (in a similar way it happened between Mifos and MifosX). It
ultimately drove the efforts of collaboration apart and has resulted in
various larger implementers/developer teams forking away.


BR,
Giorgio.

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Saransh Sharma]

Greg, look at below stats
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Survey+Results+-+2021+August

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 8:21 PM Saransh Sharma 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 7:52 PM Greg Stein  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 02:00:52PM +0200, Muellners ApS wrote:
>> > *"When late Stephen Hawkings wrote scientific papers, the papers would
>> > get peer reviewed & then published. What incredible and amazing ideas,
>> yet
>> > peer reviewed. What a humble human being! I now wonder if he had started
>> > self approving his own talks. How much humanity would then have
>> discovered
>> > about black holes?"*
>>
>> Rich has already explained that we allow self-approval since track
>> chairs are subject matter experts, and we want their talks. This has
>> been the position for two decades. Your notion of peer-reviewed talks
>> is not the chosen model. So you can stop beating this dead horse, and
>> move on with contributing to Fineract, instead of complaining about
>> the now-finished conference.
>>
> Why not change that ?
>
>>
>> > *???Governance of  "Intellectual Property" generated by many developers,
>> > across the world, and which is adopted by the Financial services sector,
>> > who all seek that the financial technology, which they work with or
>> adopt,
>> > is truly free from any influence of  "For Profit" stakeholders.??? I am
>> sad
>> > to say that what has come to my attention, is perhaps not the industry
>> > defining standards of open source IP and project management.*
>>
>> Most F/OSS projects are developed by people with financial interest in
>> the outcome of those projects. Nothing new there.
>>
> That's not true. Actually some projects do work for larger mission than
> only serving financial interests . to name few , MIFOS is one of them,and
> Muellners Foundation is also one of them. I can name more.
>
>>
>> > *Now that we are here, I'm encouraging non presumptive, empathetic,
>> patient
>> > and peaceful dialogue, perhaps exercising a bit of restraint, (most
>> likely
>>
>> You and your peers at Muellsner are exhibiting none of these traits.
>>
> Wrong name its. Muellners Foundation Actually look at the emails above, we
> have been quite frankly not attacking anyone!
>
>>
>> >...
>> > 1. Chair Appointment: A Track chair(TC) appointment was not discussed on
>> > this list.
>>
>> Yes, it was. Rich provided a link. Move along.
>>
>> >...
>> > *I **would like to invite the Board to help us understand whether they
>> have
>> > appointed a single person as TC, on PMC???s advice, and in absence of
>> the
>> > community being able to exercise its decision making ability on this
>> list*
>>
>> The Board is wholly uninvolved in the TC process. That was the PMC and
>> the VP Conferences. The Board delegated it, so it doesn't care, and
>> you'll get no action from them on this.
>>
>> > 2. Review of Proposals: The Track committee (if it only contained a
>> single
>> > person) has forgotten to post any invitation/access to the Proposal
>> Review
>> > Console for "peer review".
>> >
>> > The community may feel excluded if a process lets a single person go
>> > through proposals and scientific ideas of others, and without following
>> the
>> > Apache way of decision making, then I am seriously alarmed by the
>> presence
>> > of such processes in this Non for profit ASF???s activities.
>>
>> You are making up your own definition of how the track chair operates.
>> It does not match reality, and you and your Muellsner colleagues are
>> the only ones complaining. This model of selection is fine and
>> appropriate for a non-profit charity such as the ASF.
>>
> Yeah because if others complain, you will ask them to code :)
>
>>
>> > 3. The PMC self nomination exercise by Saransh, Bruce and others is
>> nothing
>> > but a healthy demonstration. What they are possibly demonstrating is the
>> > finiteness to self approvals and self nominations in this Apache
>> community.
>> > As we can see, the first PMC is constituted by the board and nominations
>> > thereafter only by an existing member. The chair itself is an ASF
>> officer.
>> > (Hope the chair is not made by cutting more wood though.) PMCs play a
>> vital
>> > role in managing the project affairs & representing the project
>> community.
>> > PMC actions are also sequentially ratified by the Board, on the premise
>> of
>> > "Quarterly Board Report" and a private mailing list amongst other tools.
>> >
>> > *The nature of my objections bring me to see a lesser inclusive
>> > representation of the project community by its PMC. Does this mean that
>> the
>> > Board of ASF now holds a fiduciary responsibility to respond to these
>> > objections? *
>>
>> You are demonstrating your lack of knowledge of how the ASF operates,
>> and why it operates this way. You should probably do more observation
>> and asking question, rather than stating "it is wrong". The Board does
>> not ratify decisions (it has delegated that decision-making), and the

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Saransh Sharma]

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 7:52 PM Greg Stein  wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 02:00:52PM +0200, Muellners ApS wrote:
> > *"When late Stephen Hawkings wrote scientific papers, the papers would
> > get peer reviewed & then published. What incredible and amazing ideas,
> yet
> > peer reviewed. What a humble human being! I now wonder if he had started
> > self approving his own talks. How much humanity would then have
> discovered
> > about black holes?"*
>
> Rich has already explained that we allow self-approval since track
> chairs are subject matter experts, and we want their talks. This has
> been the position for two decades. Your notion of peer-reviewed talks
> is not the chosen model. So you can stop beating this dead horse, and
> move on with contributing to Fineract, instead of complaining about
> the now-finished conference.
>
Why not change that ?

>
> > *???Governance of  "Intellectual Property" generated by many developers,
> > across the world, and which is adopted by the Financial services sector,
> > who all seek that the financial technology, which they work with or
> adopt,
> > is truly free from any influence of  "For Profit" stakeholders.??? I am
> sad
> > to say that what has come to my attention, is perhaps not the industry
> > defining standards of open source IP and project management.*
>
> Most F/OSS projects are developed by people with financial interest in
> the outcome of those projects. Nothing new there.
>
That's not true. Actually some projects do work for larger mission than
only serving financial interests . to name few , MIFOS is one of them,and
Muellners Foundation is also one of them. I can name more.

>
> > *Now that we are here, I'm encouraging non presumptive, empathetic,
> patient
> > and peaceful dialogue, perhaps exercising a bit of restraint, (most
> likely
>
> You and your peers at Muellsner are exhibiting none of these traits.
>
Wrong name its. Muellners Foundation Actually look at the emails above, we
have been quite frankly not attacking anyone!

>
> >...
> > 1. Chair Appointment: A Track chair(TC) appointment was not discussed on
> > this list.
>
> Yes, it was. Rich provided a link. Move along.
>
> >...
> > *I **would like to invite the Board to help us understand whether they
> have
> > appointed a single person as TC, on PMC???s advice, and in absence of the
> > community being able to exercise its decision making ability on this
> list*
>
> The Board is wholly uninvolved in the TC process. That was the PMC and
> the VP Conferences. The Board delegated it, so it doesn't care, and
> you'll get no action from them on this.
>
> > 2. Review of Proposals: The Track committee (if it only contained a
> single
> > person) has forgotten to post any invitation/access to the Proposal
> Review
> > Console for "peer review".
> >
> > The community may feel excluded if a process lets a single person go
> > through proposals and scientific ideas of others, and without following
> the
> > Apache way of decision making, then I am seriously alarmed by the
> presence
> > of such processes in this Non for profit ASF???s activities.
>
> You are making up your own definition of how the track chair operates.
> It does not match reality, and you and your Muellsner colleagues are
> the only ones complaining. This model of selection is fine and
> appropriate for a non-profit charity such as the ASF.
>
Yeah because if others complain, you will ask them to code :)

>
> > 3. The PMC self nomination exercise by Saransh, Bruce and others is
> nothing
> > but a healthy demonstration. What they are possibly demonstrating is the
> > finiteness to self approvals and self nominations in this Apache
> community.
> > As we can see, the first PMC is constituted by the board and nominations
> > thereafter only by an existing member. The chair itself is an ASF
> officer.
> > (Hope the chair is not made by cutting more wood though.) PMCs play a
> vital
> > role in managing the project affairs & representing the project
> community.
> > PMC actions are also sequentially ratified by the Board, on the premise
> of
> > "Quarterly Board Report" and a private mailing list amongst other tools.
> >
> > *The nature of my objections bring me to see a lesser inclusive
> > representation of the project community by its PMC. Does this mean that
> the
> > Board of ASF now holds a fiduciary responsibility to respond to these
> > objections? *
>
> You are demonstrating your lack of knowledge of how the ASF operates,
> and why it operates this way. You should probably do more observation
> and asking question, rather than stating "it is wrong". The Board does
> not ratify decisions (it has delegated that decision-making), and the
> Board holds no fiduciary responsibility because there are no money
> flows within the projects.
>
I think we need to move beyond words, Greg it's about setting things in a
direction rather than now right and wrong.

> > I am sorry to say but we may have failed to establish some of the best

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Saransh Sharma]

Hey Greg thanks for such a beautiful mail, this is what I needed. So to
start , I don;t know how to code ! What can I do then in that case, maybe
write a document but i don't think that's equivalent to writing code. As I
have mentioned before, meritocracy is a fake dream that open source
projects sell to the world. That is what you are doing right now, you are
disrespecting to those who have contributed to this project who cannot
code. Fineract is not only a product that needs coding , its need
configuration (This happens)

Greg, seems like your understanding is limited, community over code is the
Apache way., Black holes are a bit of science that maybe you can read and
get to know a different perspective.

I think we need different perspectives.



On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 6:22 PM Greg Stein  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 08:03:09AM +0530, Saransh Sharma wrote:
> >...
> > Where can I suggest a new governance model,
>
> Nowhere.
>
> The model is defined by the Apache Software Foundation, and has been
> in successful use for over two decades. It is designed with specific
> intent, to assist communities in producing releases under a cover of a
> legal umbrella.
>
> It isn't changing.
>
> > because the existing model only represent few .
>
> Then you misunderstand it. The PMC manages and represents the entire
> community, and you can be part of that community, or not. You have the
> ability to be part of that community by your mere presence on dev@.
> But you have to work with others, rather than tell them how they are
> "doing it wrong, and need to change".
>
> Now. Just start writing some code, and submitting PRs. That is the
> best way forward, for your involvement in the Fineract community.
>
> >...
>
> Cheers,
> Greg Stein
> 20+ year Member, ASF
>


-- 
Thanks and regards,

Saransh Sharma
Research Partner

This mail is governed by Muellners®  IT policy.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Greg Stein]

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 02:00:52PM +0200, Muellners ApS wrote:
> *"When late Stephen Hawkings wrote scientific papers, the papers would
> get peer reviewed & then published. What incredible and amazing ideas, yet
> peer reviewed. What a humble human being! I now wonder if he had started
> self approving his own talks. How much humanity would then have discovered
> about black holes?"*

Rich has already explained that we allow self-approval since track
chairs are subject matter experts, and we want their talks. This has
been the position for two decades. Your notion of peer-reviewed talks
is not the chosen model. So you can stop beating this dead horse, and
move on with contributing to Fineract, instead of complaining about
the now-finished conference.

> *???Governance of  "Intellectual Property" generated by many developers,
> across the world, and which is adopted by the Financial services sector,
> who all seek that the financial technology, which they work with or adopt,
> is truly free from any influence of  "For Profit" stakeholders.??? I am sad
> to say that what has come to my attention, is perhaps not the industry
> defining standards of open source IP and project management.*

Most F/OSS projects are developed by people with financial interest in
the outcome of those projects. Nothing new there.

> *Now that we are here, I'm encouraging non presumptive, empathetic, patient
> and peaceful dialogue, perhaps exercising a bit of restraint, (most likely

You and your peers at Muellsner are exhibiting none of these traits.

>...
> 1. Chair Appointment: A Track chair(TC) appointment was not discussed on
> this list.

Yes, it was. Rich provided a link. Move along.

>...
> *I **would like to invite the Board to help us understand whether they have
> appointed a single person as TC, on PMC???s advice, and in absence of the
> community being able to exercise its decision making ability on this list*

The Board is wholly uninvolved in the TC process. That was the PMC and
the VP Conferences. The Board delegated it, so it doesn't care, and
you'll get no action from them on this.

> 2. Review of Proposals: The Track committee (if it only contained a single
> person) has forgotten to post any invitation/access to the Proposal Review
> Console for "peer review".
> 
> The community may feel excluded if a process lets a single person go
> through proposals and scientific ideas of others, and without following the
> Apache way of decision making, then I am seriously alarmed by the presence
> of such processes in this Non for profit ASF???s activities.

You are making up your own definition of how the track chair operates.
It does not match reality, and you and your Muellsner colleagues are
the only ones complaining. This model of selection is fine and
appropriate for a non-profit charity such as the ASF.

> 3. The PMC self nomination exercise by Saransh, Bruce and others is nothing
> but a healthy demonstration. What they are possibly demonstrating is the
> finiteness to self approvals and self nominations in this Apache community.
> As we can see, the first PMC is constituted by the board and nominations
> thereafter only by an existing member. The chair itself is an ASF officer.
> (Hope the chair is not made by cutting more wood though.) PMCs play a vital
> role in managing the project affairs & representing the project community.
> PMC actions are also sequentially ratified by the Board, on the premise of
> "Quarterly Board Report" and a private mailing list amongst other tools.
> 
> *The nature of my objections bring me to see a lesser inclusive
> representation of the project community by its PMC. Does this mean that the
> Board of ASF now holds a fiduciary responsibility to respond to these
> objections? *

You are demonstrating your lack of knowledge of how the ASF operates,
and why it operates this way. You should probably do more observation
and asking question, rather than stating "it is wrong". The Board does
not ratify decisions (it has delegated that decision-making), and the
Board holds no fiduciary responsibility because there are no money
flows within the projects.

> I am sorry to say but we may have failed to establish some of the best
> enterprising, socially inclined & sustainable practices for this open
> source *financial technology *project.

To your perception, yes. But as I stated in elsewhere in this thread,
the Foundation has demonstrated this community model successfully for
over two decades. 

> As many members, including some of the Board Members of ASF, have
> deliberated over this thread, I welcome this as a healthy dialogue(read not
> dispute) in the hope that these gaps are mitigated by this community, in

You are the only person disputing the conference process and the
governance model that is in place. I am one person saying that you
have no idea what you're talking about. Others may agree. The PMC may
agree, take no position, or ask you to just move along.

I suggest you start 

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Muellners ApS]

*"When late Stephen Hawkings wrote scientific papers, the papers would
get peer reviewed & then published. What incredible and amazing ideas, yet
peer reviewed. What a humble human being! I now wonder if he had started
self approving his own talks. How much humanity would then have discovered
about black holes?"*

*“Governance of  "Intellectual Property" generated by many developers,
across the world, and which is adopted by the Financial services sector,
who all seek that the financial technology, which they work with or adopt,
is truly free from any influence of  "For Profit" stakeholders.” I am sad
to say that what has come to my attention, is perhaps not the industry
defining standards of open source IP and project management.*
*--*
*Now that we are here, I'm encouraging non presumptive, empathetic, patient
and peaceful dialogue, perhaps exercising a bit of restraint, (most likely
with factual data to this thread). I respect all of your opinions. I do
support Saransh, Bruce and many "others".* I have had a privilege to
witness some of the remarkable unheard stories, of developers, partners,
functional consultants, putting their hard work up, in hope for a better
world, a world devoid of poverty.

1. Chair Appointment: A Track chair(TC) appointment was not discussed on
this list. If this took place outside this list, either on a Zoom call, I
am sorry to say that it does not constitute an appointment.  (It would be
great if communities collaborate anywhere, everywhere, be it a 12D space or
deep inside the planet earth.) *[And he/she/they should bring the
conversation back to this mailing list for a democratic process of decision
making.(within the ASF guidelines)] *>*Another way that a track chair
appointment can take place is by the PMC's action and subsequent
ratification by the Board. *

*I **would like to invite the Board to help us understand whether they have
appointed a single person as TC, on PMC’s advice, and in absence of the
community being able to exercise its decision making ability on this list*
*.*

2. Review of Proposals: The Track committee (if it only contained a single
person) has forgotten to post any invitation/access to the Proposal Review
Console for "peer review".

The community may feel excluded if a process lets a single person go
through proposals and scientific ideas of others, and without following the
Apache way of decision making, then I am seriously alarmed by the presence
of such processes in this Non for profit ASF’s activities.

3. The PMC self nomination exercise by Saransh, Bruce and others is nothing
but a healthy demonstration. What they are possibly demonstrating is the
finiteness to self approvals and self nominations in this Apache community.
As we can see, the first PMC is constituted by the board and nominations
thereafter only by an existing member. The chair itself is an ASF officer.
(Hope the chair is not made by cutting more wood though.) PMCs play a vital
role in managing the project affairs & representing the project community.
PMC actions are also sequentially ratified by the Board, on the premise of
"Quarterly Board Report" and a private mailing list amongst other tools.

*The nature of my objections bring me to see a lesser inclusive
representation of the project community by its PMC. Does this mean that the
Board of ASF now holds a fiduciary responsibility to respond to these
objections? *

I am sorry to say but we may have failed to establish some of the best
enterprising, socially inclined & sustainable practices for this open
source *financial technology *project.

As many members, including some of the Board Members of ASF, have
deliberated over this thread, I welcome this as a healthy dialogue(read not
dispute) in the hope that these gaps are mitigated by this community, in
the near future. As a member of this community, my objection is not to
question any single human being(neither am I interested in such a waste of
humanity's resources) but the mere processes behind these actions, which
evolved with time and whether these processes have resulted in this
under-representation.


Thanks everyone for your time in reading this. ( mailing list
 for
Apr, May,Jun,Jul & a stakeholder diagram).


[Reminder - please stay on this thread as on the subject of organising the
Apache Con 2021 & objection to Track Chair Appointment including Self
Appointment of Proposals.]

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Greg Stein]

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 08:03:09AM +0530, Saransh Sharma wrote:
>...
> Where can I suggest a new governance model,

Nowhere.

The model is defined by the Apache Software Foundation, and has been
in successful use for over two decades. It is designed with specific
intent, to assist communities in producing releases under a cover of a
legal umbrella.

It isn't changing.

> because the existing model only represent few .

Then you misunderstand it. The PMC manages and represents the entire
community, and you can be part of that community, or not. You have the
ability to be part of that community by your mere presence on dev@.
But you have to work with others, rather than tell them how they are
"doing it wrong, and need to change".

Now. Just start writing some code, and submitting PRs. That is the
best way forward, for your involvement in the Fineract community.

>...

Cheers,
Greg Stein
20+ year Member, ASF

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Bruce]

Saransh, I agree with your submissions. We don't need to follow any person
, but the project itself.  I also like your idea of rethinking the
architecture to take advantage  of  Web3. There has to be a willingness
from all of us to embrace change of course without jeopardizing the core
open source  principles of  the project .

Thank you all for the discussion .  I call this progress


Bruce Tushabe

In rural Uganda

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 5:33 AM Saransh Sharma  wrote:

> Myrle ,
>
> I am not demanding anything from anyone let me put this straight , I think
> I have agreed to whatever has happened and am trying to improvise on the
> project.
>
> This is my intention , that how the whole project is structured , and to
> me it gives the impression that the representation of the community by and
> large is handed by just few. I would like that to happen not on merit. I
> would like to get out of these titles , this is more about the project
> movement.
>
> I might not want a new project , I have been contributing to the existing
> project now if you want me to prove in your bounded closed reality that's
> quite not fair ,i am not up for such low level integrity checks, (You have
> to be like us , then you are the PMC, or steering committee e)  Actually
> the new project should not need to be a fork of Apache Fineract . If you
> change the architecture of the project then its no longer same.
>
>
> Again, you are making it about an individual , I am totally against it, I
> dont want people following me. I would like to have the project being
> followed. BTW there are several forks already doing great , I think
> promoting several forks is not a bad idea.
>
> The thing is quite clear, the lacuna exist in Fineract CN , that can be
> resolved by discussion Around the project architecture and slowly moving it
> towards a greater height, but for that we might need a new governance model.
>
> Where can I suggest a new governance model, because the existing model
> only represent few . So unless we move from that philosophy we won't be
> able to change other things related to the project that which are our mere
> reflection.
>
> I have already presented my views last year, I am now ready with new novel
> methods related to moving Fineract CN into a complete distributed
> architecture that we could  participate in the new wave of web3 that is
> going on.
>
> Thanks
> I hope , this is clear
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:05 PM Myrle Krantz  wrote:
>
>> Saransh,
>>
>> The Apache Fineract PMC members are appointed by the Apache board.  The
>> board almost always ratifies the suggestions of the Fineract PMC.  Awasum
>> Yannick, the Vice President of Apache Fineract, has already shared with you
>> documentation on how the Fineract PMC comes to those suggestions.  Your
>> response to him was dismissive, disrespectful, and entitled.  As was your
>> response in the last couple of days to several other people who didn't give
>> you things that you have demanded.  Several of the people you have been
>> rude to are well-liked and respected in The ASF and in the Fineract
>> community.  I could be reading the room wrong, but I do not believe the
>> Apache Fineract PMC is inclined to appoint you to their midst.
>>
>> The board has a strong interest in promoting and enabling healthy
>> communities, and for that reason they will very very very likely defer to
>> the Apache Fineract PMC.  If I were a board member (and I was a board
>> member recently), I would likely question your PMC appointment, even if the
>> Fineract PMC were to suggest it.
>>
>> If you believe a community exists here that is not represented by the
>> Apache Fineract PMC, then what you actually want is a new project.  You can
>> discuss this with the Apache Incubator.  But if I were a member of the
>> Apache Incubator PMC (and I am), I would vote against a fork of Apache
>> Fineract.
>>
>> You can fork or copy the code to another forum if you like.  But as one
>> of the main architects of Fineract CN, I can tell you for certain: I would
>> not follow you, nor would I recommend anyone else do so.
>>
>> And even if you succeed at forking the community and the code (very very
>> very unlikely), what you can't do is call it Fineract, or Fineract CN.
>> You'll have to find a new name for it.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Myrle
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 5:52 PM Saransh Sharma 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks KAG for clarifying but in my opinion the term self is not the
>>> focus,let me state the context for you here, that this is regarding the
>>> decision making or rather consensus from the community.  But the term is
>>> misleading and needs to be modified .
>>>
>>> What if the community or the volunteers want to select  PMC ?As I have
>>> read its a closed system to select a PMC,
>>>
>>> Is there any provision for that ? Then we have an open system. Current
>>> system and selection of those who get to decide most of the stuff happens
>>> behind the scenes 

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Myrle Krantz]

Saransh,

The Apache Fineract PMC members are appointed by the Apache board.  The
board almost always ratifies the suggestions of the Fineract PMC.  Awasum
Yannick, the Vice President of Apache Fineract, has already shared with you
documentation on how the Fineract PMC comes to those suggestions.  Your
response to him was dismissive, disrespectful, and entitled.  As was your
response in the last couple of days to several other people who didn't give
you things that you have demanded.  Several of the people you have been
rude to are well-liked and respected in The ASF and in the Fineract
community.  I could be reading the room wrong, but I do not believe the
Apache Fineract PMC is inclined to appoint you to their midst.

The board has a strong interest in promoting and enabling healthy
communities, and for that reason they will very very very likely defer to
the Apache Fineract PMC.  If I were a board member (and I was a board
member recently), I would likely question your PMC appointment, even if the
Fineract PMC were to suggest it.

If you believe a community exists here that is not represented by the
Apache Fineract PMC, then what you actually want is a new project.  You can
discuss this with the Apache Incubator.  But if I were a member of the
Apache Incubator PMC (and I am), I would vote against a fork of Apache
Fineract.

You can fork or copy the code to another forum if you like.  But as one of
the main architects of Fineract CN, I can tell you for certain: I would not
follow you, nor would I recommend anyone else do so.

And even if you succeed at forking the community and the code (very very
very unlikely), what you can't do is call it Fineract, or Fineract CN.
You'll have to find a new name for it.

Best Regards,
Myrle

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 5:52 PM Saransh Sharma 
wrote:

>
> Thanks KAG for clarifying but in my opinion the term self is not the
> focus,let me state the context for you here, that this is regarding the
> decision making or rather consensus from the community.  But the term is
> misleading and needs to be modified .
>
> What if the community or the volunteers want to select  PMC ?As I have
> read its a closed system to select a PMC,
>
> Is there any provision for that ? Then we have an open system. Current
> system and selection of those who get to decide most of the stuff happens
> behind the scenes like selection of PMC could we do it openly?
>
> Right now the participation of the project happens via the PMC and
> committers and developers are left behind since they don't hold any right
> over the project direction. This plagues the direction of the project since
> only handful are there to select or vote out.  We need to empower all the
> participants through some common exchange of value system. Like users ,
> developers who could vote for PMC selection.
> Let me know your thoughts
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 5:56 PM Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 21, 2021, at 8:03 AM, Saransh Sharma 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Awasum for your reference
>>
>> Apache Projects are overseen by a self-selected team
>>
>>
>> Saransh for your reference.
>>
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>
>
> --
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Saransh Sharma
> Research Partner
>
> This mail is governed by Muellners®  IT policy.
> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents
> may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
> this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
> the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
> attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
> of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
> prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
> monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
> compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
> are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
> intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
> to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
>

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Saransh Sharma]

Let me summarise my thoughts

Perceived value of merit can be different for every individual's , it's
like defining who is best and honestly this is going to full of bias
(Hoping apache is not using any kind of AI behind :)) Studies have shown
that organizational cultures that value meritocracy often result in greater
inequality

It's time that we break this practice , since merit is something that
cannot be quantified and it can be pursued on equal terms and rather accept
that the community is unequal . Acceptance may provide some form of wisdom.

Times are not equal these days!





On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:21 PM Saransh Sharma 
wrote:

>
> Thanks KAG for clarifying but in my opinion the term self is not the
> focus,let me state the context for you here, that this is regarding the
> decision making or rather consensus from the community.  But the term is
> misleading and needs to be modified .
>
> What if the community or the volunteers want to select  PMC ?As I have
> read its a closed system to select a PMC,
>
> Is there any provision for that ? Then we have an open system. Current
> system and selection of those who get to decide most of the stuff happens
> behind the scenes like selection of PMC could we do it openly?
>
> Right now the participation of the project happens via the PMC and
> committers and developers are left behind since they don't hold any right
> over the project direction. This plagues the direction of the project since
> only handful are there to select or vote out.  We need to empower all the
> participants through some common exchange of value system. Like users ,
> developers who could vote for PMC selection.
> Let me know your thoughts
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 5:56 PM Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 21, 2021, at 8:03 AM, Saransh Sharma 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Awasum for your reference
>>
>> Apache Projects are overseen by a self-selected team
>>
>>
>> Saransh for your reference.
>>
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>
>
> --
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Saransh Sharma
> Research Partner
>
> This mail is governed by Muellners®  IT policy.
> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents
> may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
> this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
> the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
> attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
> of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
> prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
> monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
> compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
> are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
> intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
> to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
>


-- 
Thanks and regards,

Saransh Sharma
Research Partner

This mail is governed by Muellners®  IT policy.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Saransh Sharma]

Thanks KAG for clarifying but in my opinion the term self is not the
focus,let me state the context for you here, that this is regarding the
decision making or rather consensus from the community.  But the term is
misleading and needs to be modified .

What if the community or the volunteers want to select  PMC ?As I have read
its a closed system to select a PMC,

Is there any provision for that ? Then we have an open system. Current
system and selection of those who get to decide most of the stuff happens
behind the scenes like selection of PMC could we do it openly?

Right now the participation of the project happens via the PMC and
committers and developers are left behind since they don't hold any right
over the project direction. This plagues the direction of the project since
only handful are there to select or vote out.  We need to empower all the
participants through some common exchange of value system. Like users ,
developers who could vote for PMC selection.
Let me know your thoughts

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 5:56 PM Jim Jagielski  wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 21, 2021, at 8:03 AM, Saransh Sharma  wrote:
>
> Awasum for your reference
>
> Apache Projects are overseen by a self-selected team
>
>
> Saransh for your reference.
>
>
> Wrong.
>


-- 
Thanks and regards,

Saransh Sharma
Research Partner

This mail is governed by Muellners®  IT policy.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Myrle Krantz]

Saransh,

Allow me to introduce: Jim Jagielski was one of the Apache Fineract mentors
through incubation, and he is one of the longest serving members of the
board of The Apache Software Foundation.  He's also served as the chair of
Apache OpenOffice and numerous other projects.

Kevin McGrail is a former VP Fundraising and former Assistant Treasurer for
the Foundation, as well as a long serving chair for the SpamAssassin
project.

Neither of them is always right; in fact I'm often in disagreement with
both of them.  But they and I are in agreement here.

Best Regards,
Myrle Krantz

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 2:26 PM Jim Jagielski  wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 21, 2021, at 8:03 AM, Saransh Sharma  wrote:
>
> Awasum for your reference
>
> Apache Projects are overseen by a self-selected team
>
>
> Saransh for your reference.
>
>
> Wrong.
>

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Sep 21, 2021, at 8:03 AM, Saransh Sharma  wrote:
> 
> Awasum for your reference 
> 
> Apache Projects are overseen by a self-selected team

Saransh for your reference.


Wrong.

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Kevin A. McGrail]

On 9/21/2021 8:03 AM, Saransh Sharma wrote:

Awasum for your reference

Apache Projects are overseen by a self-selected team of active 
volunteers who are contributing to their respective projects. Projects 
are auto-governing with a heavy slant towards driving consensus to 
maintain momentum and productivity. Whilst total consensus is not 
possible to establish at all times, holding a vote or other 
coordination may be required to help remove any blocks with binding 
decisions, such as when declaring a release. More on decision making 
and voting 
.


Saransh,

I assume you are discussing the term "self-selected" which refers to the 
ASF's bottom up leadership approach.  "Self" is not referring to an 
individual, it is referring to a "Top Level Project" or TLP.


After a TLP is established by a motion of the board, it includes the 
initial PMC.  After that, the process to maintain the PMC is covered 
here: https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html


You cannot self-nominate yourself to the PMC.

regards,

KAM




On Tuesday, September 21, 2021, Awasum Yannick > wrote:


Hi All,

How to become a committer or PMC member for Apache Fineract is
here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Becoming+a+Committer


You have to be nominated by a current PMC member for Apache
Fineract on the private Fineract List. You gain committership or
PMC membership through continuous positive contributions(technical
and non technical contributions are valid, docs, JIRA ticets, QA,
Product management, PR contributions etc) over a period of time.

You don't get PMC membership by making a statement here.
communicate with us by e-mail.


--
Kevin A. McGrail
kmcgr...@apache.org

Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Saransh Sharma]

I request all other members to chip in and please provide input .

Thanks

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021, Saransh Sharma 
wrote:

> Awasum for your reference
>
> Apache Projects are overseen by a self-selected team of active volunteers
> who are contributing to their respective projects. Projects are
> auto-governing with a heavy slant towards driving consensus to maintain
> momentum and productivity. Whilst total consensus is not possible to
> establish at all times, holding a vote or other coordination may be
> required to help remove any blocks with binding decisions, such as when
> declaring a release. More on decision making and voting
> .
>
> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021, Awasum Yannick  wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> How to become a committer or PMC member for Apache Fineract is here:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Becoming+a+Committer
>>
>> You have to be nominated by a current PMC member for Apache Fineract on
>> the private Fineract List. You gain committership or PMC membership through
>> continuous positive contributions(technical and non technical contributions
>> are valid, docs, JIRA ticets, QA, Product management, PR contributions etc)
>> over a period of time.
>>
>> You don't get PMC membership by making a statement here.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 8:33 AM Saransh Sharma 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the appointment of track chair was never done publicly or asked
>>> for from the community unless it was self appointed or appointed in
>>> shadows!
>>>
>>> If I am not on the list and how can I vote the talks !
>>>
>>> Silence is the consent but raising objection is needed if seen any time
>>> . There is no limit to that in terms of a time frame as you are pressing
>>> here .
>>>
>>> If Javier and Rich gets to decide certain rules and get it approved by
>>> silence then we could definitely use lazy consent at any given time to redo
>>> those decision.
>>>
>>>
>>> As a volunteer , I would like to share that community need to work
>>> together rather than a single benevolent dictator making rules on whims and
>>> small timeframes and making excuses on the fact that what others will say
>>> or it’s disrespectful for other volunteers or speakers if we change !
>>>
>>> In my opinion , this Stone Age practice of deciding things a decade ago
>>> need to be revisited
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, September 20, 2021, Rich Bowen  wrote:
>>>


 On 2021/09/19 07:35:33, Muellners ApS  wrote:
 > Community for some time, we have debated whether it is right for Track
 > Chairs to self approve their own proposals in a public conf. - Apache
 Con,
 > organised by charitable donations.
 >
 > For whatever reasons, a single self appointed track chair should not
 > approve his own proposals, as this sets up a very dangerous precedent
 in
 > this community.
 >
 > I strongly object & condemn this type of deterioration of human
 values in
 > our society and this community.
 >
 > Alternate route is to continue the track by dropping the talks which
 the
 > Track Chair has decided that he/she/they will present themselves.
 > This also gives space for newer budding ideas to come forward.

 You were invited, on this list, to participate in the process. You
 declined to do so. That thread is here: https://lists.apache.org/threa
 d.html/r54be0953f95399fbd28d124c6643a568e70fc9c631bf61b10e78
 833b%40%3Cdev.fineract.apache.org%3E

 You were also invited to help rate and select the talks, via the CFP
 system. You declined that invitation also.

 You also declined to object when Javier was the track chair for this
 track last year, and the year before that.

 As for whether track chairs can run their own talks - that was my
 decision, not Javier's. And I made that decision more than a decade ago,
 and have been consistent with it every year since then. Track chairs are,
 by definition, subject matter experts, and excluding them from being
 speakers would be self-defeating. So we don't do that. Nobody has objected
 to it, because the track chair was, in every case, approved by the project
 community. You, specifically, approved Javier as your track chair by your
 silence, and by not volunteering for that committee.

 For whatever it's worth, Saransh, the rating of talks for this event
 *was* run by an anoymized voting platform (ie, speakers name was not on the
 abstract). And everyone who asked to be part of that review process was
 granted access to do so. I note that your name is not on that list.

 This entire conversation is profoundly disrespectful to the HUNDREDS of
 volunteer hours that went into putting this event together. And having this
 conversation on this list, 2 days before the event is to start, would be
 laughable if it wasn't so 

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Saransh Sharma]

Awasum for your reference

Apache Projects are overseen by a self-selected team of active volunteers
who are contributing to their respective projects. Projects are
auto-governing with a heavy slant towards driving consensus to maintain
momentum and productivity. Whilst total consensus is not possible to
establish at all times, holding a vote or other coordination may be
required to help remove any blocks with binding decisions, such as when
declaring a release. More on decision making and voting
.

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021, Awasum Yannick  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> How to become a committer or PMC member for Apache Fineract is here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Becoming+a+Committer
>
> You have to be nominated by a current PMC member for Apache Fineract on
> the private Fineract List. You gain committership or PMC membership through
> continuous positive contributions(technical and non technical contributions
> are valid, docs, JIRA ticets, QA, Product management, PR contributions etc)
> over a period of time.
>
> You don't get PMC membership by making a statement here.
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 8:33 AM Saransh Sharma 
> wrote:
>
>> I think the appointment of track chair was never done publicly or asked
>> for from the community unless it was self appointed or appointed in
>> shadows!
>>
>> If I am not on the list and how can I vote the talks !
>>
>> Silence is the consent but raising objection is needed if seen any time .
>> There is no limit to that in terms of a time frame as you are pressing here
>> .
>>
>> If Javier and Rich gets to decide certain rules and get it approved by
>> silence then we could definitely use lazy consent at any given time to redo
>> those decision.
>>
>>
>> As a volunteer , I would like to share that community need to work
>> together rather than a single benevolent dictator making rules on whims and
>> small timeframes and making excuses on the fact that what others will say
>> or it’s disrespectful for other volunteers or speakers if we change !
>>
>> In my opinion , this Stone Age practice of deciding things a decade ago
>> need to be revisited
>>
>>
>> On Monday, September 20, 2021, Rich Bowen  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021/09/19 07:35:33, Muellners ApS  wrote:
>>> > Community for some time, we have debated whether it is right for Track
>>> > Chairs to self approve their own proposals in a public conf. - Apache
>>> Con,
>>> > organised by charitable donations.
>>> >
>>> > For whatever reasons, a single self appointed track chair should not
>>> > approve his own proposals, as this sets up a very dangerous precedent
>>> in
>>> > this community.
>>> >
>>> > I strongly object & condemn this type of deterioration of human values
>>> in
>>> > our society and this community.
>>> >
>>> > Alternate route is to continue the track by dropping the talks which
>>> the
>>> > Track Chair has decided that he/she/they will present themselves.
>>> > This also gives space for newer budding ideas to come forward.
>>>
>>> You were invited, on this list, to participate in the process. You
>>> declined to do so. That thread is here: https://lists.apache.org/
>>> thread.html/r54be0953f95399fbd28d124c6643a568e70fc9c631bf61b10e78833b%
>>> 40%3Cdev.fineract.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>> You were also invited to help rate and select the talks, via the CFP
>>> system. You declined that invitation also.
>>>
>>> You also declined to object when Javier was the track chair for this
>>> track last year, and the year before that.
>>>
>>> As for whether track chairs can run their own talks - that was my
>>> decision, not Javier's. And I made that decision more than a decade ago,
>>> and have been consistent with it every year since then. Track chairs are,
>>> by definition, subject matter experts, and excluding them from being
>>> speakers would be self-defeating. So we don't do that. Nobody has objected
>>> to it, because the track chair was, in every case, approved by the project
>>> community. You, specifically, approved Javier as your track chair by your
>>> silence, and by not volunteering for that committee.
>>>
>>> For whatever it's worth, Saransh, the rating of talks for this event
>>> *was* run by an anoymized voting platform (ie, speakers name was not on the
>>> abstract). And everyone who asked to be part of that review process was
>>> granted access to do so. I note that your name is not on that list.
>>>
>>> This entire conversation is profoundly disrespectful to the HUNDREDS of
>>> volunteer hours that went into putting this event together. And having this
>>> conversation on this list, 2 days before the event is to start, would be
>>> laughable if it wasn't so incredibly inappropriate.
>>>
>>> This entire dispute is about a requested change to the schedule that
>>> happened less than a week before the conference starts. *I* am the one who
>>> vetoed that change, not Javier. And I did so because events 

ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Saransh Sharma]

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021, Sander van der Heyden  wrote:

> Hi Saranash,
>
> As a first and foremost acknowledgement: my reaction here is on a
> completely personal title and unrelated to my company,
>
What’s your company name ? Requesting you to share would you please ?

> this is a core principle of participating in an Apache project.
>
I think I don’t see any difference as personal or company we are just
behind all these names I agree in nutshell !

>  Therefore let me remind you: I don't see anyone else constantly doing
> plain-out self promotion. I see you critising others of selfpromotion (in a
> cobbled together argument) using your foundation with it's directly linked
> commercial entities in every other paragraph.
>
I am entitled to promote myself as you just by virtue of demonstration your
own opinions here that evolves or produced through some kind of self an
identification of some sort! And I identify by those idea but from a
distance !

Foundation is separate entity here if I had plainly promoted my foundation
as PMC but that’s not the case !  That’s true actually foundation chapters
or legal status is that what defines as is identified .

>
> While I have personally not been active in the mailinglist or the PMC for
> quite some time, I have and am still taking active interest in the state of
> the project and keep in active touch with various members in the community.
> Spectating the current way things are being discussed and treated on this
> mailinglist I cannot get away from perceiving it as an aggressive and
> unrespectful way of raising and pushing topics. While I might or might not
> agree to some of the contents that are being raised, I want to step
> completely beside that point at this stage.
>
> I see , as once Einstein said , we assume a lot of things on just mere
faith and found them to be true , as how Euclideans and classical mechanics
thought to be initially for three points on a single line and finding an
object in space ! Take a leap here and view it from different perspectives
then maybe some clarity will come !

> On the ApacheCon stuff, I firmly disagree with the way you present your
> "facts". Fineract has been participating in ApacheCon for a few years and
> in that Javier has taken lead quite a few times, similar to the team from
> AF itself. While there was therefore no public (or in the PMC for that
> matter) vote about him investing his personal time and effort in this,
> there was also clearly no objection raised when he called for proposals or
> when the topic was publicly discussed. You also raised no concerns on it
> either last year when you were late submitting your proposals or this year
> until you were (again) late submitting your input.
>
I think for this reason , let me present you like this , I have now in
whole sense all the right as a volunteer to raise an objection now ! Would
that help or perhaps it’s too late ? I think according to the Apache way we
can definitely raise an objection to an ongoing effort. Clearly any work in
this universe requires and effort no doubt or an inch of disrespect !

>
> The way your messages on this board are written come accross as
> aggressive, disrespectful and short-sighted. Many of the things raised and
> discussed (lack of transparency, need for voting tools, external
> communication tools like Slack) go directly against the Apache Way (
> http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/). I strongly recommend reading it
> carefully and in full (I read that line in some document else today and
> thought it was good to start by practicing what you preach!). Therefore a
> firm -1 for the PMC self-nomination.
>
Are you suggesting that as a project we don’t need transparency ? Or voting
? Slack is used by Apache Fineract also don’t you think . Actually as I
mentioned earlier , only thing that we are trying as a group is to
incorporate tools that can be an extension or add on.

Actually , we are suggesting some level of involvement!  Maybe words used
are not the same that you are used to so perhaps I request that please
 share how to frame them so that others could understand.

I have personally raised certain issues that are : as a financial software
we need to make the communications better and maybe if using external
tools.

I would still remind you that your vote could perhaps raising this
community into different dimensions! But I leave rest to you !

>
> But instead of all going on the offense, forcing others to be defensive
> let's start looking at things from a more positive standpoint in
> open-minded spirit and applaude the work that the various active
> contributors have been doing. As a community we have had our fair share of
> disagreements in the past and yet we are still there!  So let us try to
> build plans for the future in spirit of the Apache way using and leveraging
> the battle-tested and proven lessons and tools (primarly this public
> mailinglist) that are there.
>
This I like !  I never did anything 

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Saransh Sharma]

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021, Awasum Yannick  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> How to become a committer or PMC member for Apache Fineract is here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Becoming+a+Committer
>
Thanks Awasum you are quite good as always putting up right information.

>
> You have to be nominated by a current PMC member for Apache Fineract on
> the private Fineract List. You gain committership or PMC membership through
> continuous positive contributions(technical and non technical contributions
> are valid, docs, JIRA ticets, QA, Product management, PR contributions etc)
> over a period of time.
>
I understand and I would say how can we make it more simpler and
quantifiable that’s accessible to all! , specifically for Fineract we could
make the committer role more broader , since this project deals with a lot
of business and entities working together. We should come up with some new
definitions added on top of Existing one !

>
> You don't get PMC membership by making a statement here.
>
Some perhaps could by mere virtue of past work and as well as good
intentions and progressive mindset.

>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 8:33 AM Saransh Sharma 
> wrote:
>
>> I think the appointment of track chair was never done publicly or asked
>> for from the community unless it was self appointed or appointed in
>> shadows!
>>
>> If I am not on the list and how can I vote the talks !
>>
>> Silence is the consent but raising objection is needed if seen any time .
>> There is no limit to that in terms of a time frame as you are pressing here
>> .
>>
>> If Javier and Rich gets to decide certain rules and get it approved by
>> silence then we could definitely use lazy consent at any given time to redo
>> those decision.
>>
>>
>> As a volunteer , I would like to share that community need to work
>> together rather than a single benevolent dictator making rules on whims and
>> small timeframes and making excuses on the fact that what others will say
>> or it’s disrespectful for other volunteers or speakers if we change !
>>
>> In my opinion , this Stone Age practice of deciding things a decade ago
>> need to be revisited
>>
>>
>> On Monday, September 20, 2021, Rich Bowen  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021/09/19 07:35:33, Muellners ApS  wrote:
>>> > Community for some time, we have debated whether it is right for Track
>>> > Chairs to self approve their own proposals in a public conf. - Apache
>>> Con,
>>> > organised by charitable donations.
>>> >
>>> > For whatever reasons, a single self appointed track chair should not
>>> > approve his own proposals, as this sets up a very dangerous precedent
>>> in
>>> > this community.
>>> >
>>> > I strongly object & condemn this type of deterioration of human values
>>> in
>>> > our society and this community.
>>> >
>>> > Alternate route is to continue the track by dropping the talks which
>>> the
>>> > Track Chair has decided that he/she/they will present themselves.
>>> > This also gives space for newer budding ideas to come forward.
>>>
>>> You were invited, on this list, to participate in the process. You
>>> declined to do so. That thread is here: https://lists.apache.org/
>>> thread.html/r54be0953f95399fbd28d124c6643a568e70fc9c631bf61b10e78833b%
>>> 40%3Cdev.fineract.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>> You were also invited to help rate and select the talks, via the CFP
>>> system. You declined that invitation also.
>>>
>>> You also declined to object when Javier was the track chair for this
>>> track last year, and the year before that.
>>>
>>> As for whether track chairs can run their own talks - that was my
>>> decision, not Javier's. And I made that decision more than a decade ago,
>>> and have been consistent with it every year since then. Track chairs are,
>>> by definition, subject matter experts, and excluding them from being
>>> speakers would be self-defeating. So we don't do that. Nobody has objected
>>> to it, because the track chair was, in every case, approved by the project
>>> community. You, specifically, approved Javier as your track chair by your
>>> silence, and by not volunteering for that committee.
>>>
>>> For whatever it's worth, Saransh, the rating of talks for this event
>>> *was* run by an anoymized voting platform (ie, speakers name was not on the
>>> abstract). And everyone who asked to be part of that review process was
>>> granted access to do so. I note that your name is not on that list.
>>>
>>> This entire conversation is profoundly disrespectful to the HUNDREDS of
>>> volunteer hours that went into putting this event together. And having this
>>> conversation on this list, 2 days before the event is to start, would be
>>> laughable if it wasn't so incredibly inappropriate.
>>>
>>> This entire dispute is about a requested change to the schedule that
>>> happened less than a week before the conference starts. *I* am the one who
>>> vetoed that change, not Javier. And I did so because events have deadlines,
>>> and the request was long after an 

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Bruce]

This is my vote +1

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021, 12:21 PM Myrle Krantz  wrote:

> As a former PMC member I have exactly as much right to vote on this
> nomination as Sarensh has to make it (none ; o)
>
> Nonetheless here is my nonbinding vote:
> -1
>
> Best,
> Myrle
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:30 AM Saransh Sharma 
> wrote:
>
>> I think the appointment of track chair was never done publicly or asked
>> for from the community unless it was self appointed or appointed in
>> shadows!
>>
>> If I am not on the list and how can I vote the talks !
>>
>> Silence is the consent but raising objection is needed if seen any time .
>> There is no limit to that in terms of a time frame as you are pressing here
>> .
>>
>> If Javier and Rich gets to decide certain rules and get it approved by
>> silence then we could definitely use lazy consent at any given time to redo
>> those decision.
>>
>>
>> As a volunteer , I would like to share that community need to work
>> together rather than a single benevolent dictator making rules on whims and
>> small timeframes and making excuses on the fact that what others will say
>> or it’s disrespectful for other volunteers or speakers if we change !
>>
>> In my opinion , this Stone Age practice of deciding things a decade ago
>> need to be revisited. Better start now then  year better.
>>
>> I would like to propose Saransh Sharma as PMC if no one has any problem
>> with that in next three days then we can conclude this .
>>
>> Please use +1 and -1 for your votes , note your silence will be used a
>> consent so please vote and let’s amend some nice changes in the community
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> On Monday, September 20, 2021, Rich Bowen  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021/09/19 07:35:33, Muellners ApS  wrote:
>>> > Community for some time, we have debated whether it is right for Track
>>> > Chairs to self approve their own proposals in a public conf. - Apache
>>> Con,
>>> > organised by charitable donations.
>>> >
>>> > For whatever reasons, a single self appointed track chair should not
>>> > approve his own proposals, as this sets up a very dangerous precedent
>>> in
>>> > this community.
>>> >
>>> > I strongly object & condemn this type of deterioration of human values
>>> in
>>> > our society and this community.
>>> >
>>> > Alternate route is to continue the track by dropping the talks which
>>> the
>>> > Track Chair has decided that he/she/they will present themselves.
>>> > This also gives space for newer budding ideas to come forward.
>>>
>>> You were invited, on this list, to participate in the process. You
>>> declined to do so. That thread is here:
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r54be0953f95399fbd28d124c6643a568e70fc9c631bf61b10e78833b%40%3Cdev.fineract.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>> You were also invited to help rate and select the talks, via the CFP
>>> system. You declined that invitation also.
>>>
>>> You also declined to object when Javier was the track chair for this
>>> track last year, and the year before that.
>>>
>>> As for whether track chairs can run their own talks - that was my
>>> decision, not Javier's. And I made that decision more than a decade ago,
>>> and have been consistent with it every year since then. Track chairs are,
>>> by definition, subject matter experts, and excluding them from being
>>> speakers would be self-defeating. So we don't do that. Nobody has objected
>>> to it, because the track chair was, in every case, approved by the project
>>> community. You, specifically, approved Javier as your track chair by your
>>> silence, and by not volunteering for that committee.
>>>
>>> For whatever it's worth, Saransh, the rating of talks for this event
>>> *was* run by an anoymized voting platform (ie, speakers name was not on the
>>> abstract). And everyone who asked to be part of that review process was
>>> granted access to do so. I note that your name is not on that list.
>>>
>>> This entire conversation is profoundly disrespectful to the HUNDREDS of
>>> volunteer hours that went into putting this event together. And having this
>>> conversation on this list, 2 days before the event is to start, would be
>>> laughable if it wasn't so incredibly inappropriate.
>>>
>>> This entire dispute is about a requested change to the schedule that
>>> happened less than a week before the conference starts. *I* am the one who
>>> vetoed that change, not Javier. And I did so because events have deadlines,
>>> and the request was long after an already-extended deadline.
>>>
>>> Join the plann...@apachecon.com list and be part of the solution next
>>> year. Discussing *here* and *now* how ApacheCon should be run is neither
>>> effective nor appropriate.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Saransh Sharma
>> Research Partner
>>
>> Sent from my phone
>> This mail is governed by Muellners®  IT policy.
>> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents
>> may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
>> disclosure. If you are not the 

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Myrle Krantz]

As a former PMC member I have exactly as much right to vote on this
nomination as Sarensh has to make it (none ; o)

Nonetheless here is my nonbinding vote:
-1

Best,
Myrle

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:30 AM Saransh Sharma 
wrote:

> I think the appointment of track chair was never done publicly or asked
> for from the community unless it was self appointed or appointed in
> shadows!
>
> If I am not on the list and how can I vote the talks !
>
> Silence is the consent but raising objection is needed if seen any time .
> There is no limit to that in terms of a time frame as you are pressing here
> .
>
> If Javier and Rich gets to decide certain rules and get it approved by
> silence then we could definitely use lazy consent at any given time to redo
> those decision.
>
>
> As a volunteer , I would like to share that community need to work
> together rather than a single benevolent dictator making rules on whims and
> small timeframes and making excuses on the fact that what others will say
> or it’s disrespectful for other volunteers or speakers if we change !
>
> In my opinion , this Stone Age practice of deciding things a decade ago
> need to be revisited. Better start now then  year better.
>
> I would like to propose Saransh Sharma as PMC if no one has any problem
> with that in next three days then we can conclude this .
>
> Please use +1 and -1 for your votes , note your silence will be used a
> consent so please vote and let’s amend some nice changes in the community
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Monday, September 20, 2021, Rich Bowen  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2021/09/19 07:35:33, Muellners ApS  wrote:
>> > Community for some time, we have debated whether it is right for Track
>> > Chairs to self approve their own proposals in a public conf. - Apache
>> Con,
>> > organised by charitable donations.
>> >
>> > For whatever reasons, a single self appointed track chair should not
>> > approve his own proposals, as this sets up a very dangerous precedent in
>> > this community.
>> >
>> > I strongly object & condemn this type of deterioration of human values
>> in
>> > our society and this community.
>> >
>> > Alternate route is to continue the track by dropping the talks which the
>> > Track Chair has decided that he/she/they will present themselves.
>> > This also gives space for newer budding ideas to come forward.
>>
>> You were invited, on this list, to participate in the process. You
>> declined to do so. That thread is here:
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r54be0953f95399fbd28d124c6643a568e70fc9c631bf61b10e78833b%40%3Cdev.fineract.apache.org%3E
>>
>> You were also invited to help rate and select the talks, via the CFP
>> system. You declined that invitation also.
>>
>> You also declined to object when Javier was the track chair for this
>> track last year, and the year before that.
>>
>> As for whether track chairs can run their own talks - that was my
>> decision, not Javier's. And I made that decision more than a decade ago,
>> and have been consistent with it every year since then. Track chairs are,
>> by definition, subject matter experts, and excluding them from being
>> speakers would be self-defeating. So we don't do that. Nobody has objected
>> to it, because the track chair was, in every case, approved by the project
>> community. You, specifically, approved Javier as your track chair by your
>> silence, and by not volunteering for that committee.
>>
>> For whatever it's worth, Saransh, the rating of talks for this event
>> *was* run by an anoymized voting platform (ie, speakers name was not on the
>> abstract). And everyone who asked to be part of that review process was
>> granted access to do so. I note that your name is not on that list.
>>
>> This entire conversation is profoundly disrespectful to the HUNDREDS of
>> volunteer hours that went into putting this event together. And having this
>> conversation on this list, 2 days before the event is to start, would be
>> laughable if it wasn't so incredibly inappropriate.
>>
>> This entire dispute is about a requested change to the schedule that
>> happened less than a week before the conference starts. *I* am the one who
>> vetoed that change, not Javier. And I did so because events have deadlines,
>> and the request was long after an already-extended deadline.
>>
>> Join the plann...@apachecon.com list and be part of the solution next
>> year. Discussing *here* and *now* how ApacheCon should be run is neither
>> effective nor appropriate.
>>
>>
>
> --
> Saransh Sharma
> Research Partner
>
> Sent from my phone
> This mail is governed by Muellners®  IT policy.
> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents
> may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
> this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
> the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
> attachments. Any 

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Sander van der Heyden]

Hi Saranash,

As a first and foremost acknowledgement: my reaction here is on a
completely personal title and unrelated to my company, this is a core
principle of participating in an Apache project. Therefore let me remind
you: I don't see anyone else constantly doing plain-out self promotion. I
see you critising others of selfpromotion (in a cobbled together argument)
using your foundation with it's directly linked commercial entities in
every other paragraph.

While I have personally not been active in the mailinglist or the PMC for
quite some time, I have and am still taking active interest in the state of
the project and keep in active touch with various members in the community.
Spectating the current way things are being discussed and treated on this
mailinglist I cannot get away from perceiving it as an aggressive and
unrespectful way of raising and pushing topics. While I might or might not
agree to some of the contents that are being raised, I want to step
completely beside that point at this stage.

On the ApacheCon stuff, I firmly disagree with the way you present your
"facts". Fineract has been participating in ApacheCon for a few years and
in that Javier has taken lead quite a few times, similar to the team from
AF itself. While there was therefore no public (or in the PMC for that
matter) vote about him investing his personal time and effort in this,
there was also clearly no objection raised when he called for proposals or
when the topic was publicly discussed. You also raised no concerns on it
either last year when you were late submitting your proposals or this year
until you were (again) late submitting your input.

The way your messages on this board are written come accross as aggressive,
disrespectful and short-sighted. Many of the things raised and discussed
(lack of transparency, need for voting tools, external communication tools
like Slack) go directly against the Apache Way (
http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/). I strongly recommend reading it
carefully and in full (I read that line in some document else today and
thought it was good to start by practicing what you preach!). Therefore a
firm -1 for the PMC self-nomination.

But instead of all going on the offense, forcing others to be defensive
let's start looking at things from a more positive standpoint in
open-minded spirit and applaude the work that the various active
contributors have been doing. As a community we have had our fair share of
disagreements in the past and yet we are still there!  So let us try to
build plans for the future in spirit of the Apache way using and leveraging
the battle-tested and proven lessons and tools (primarly this public
mailinglist) that are there.

So stepping besides the point of this years Apache Con, let's pick up a
chain on the architecture of Fineract following the presentation there.
That is hopefully going to be a nice kick-off to discussing that further
and reaching consensus on it as a community.

Sander

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Awasum Yannick]

Hi All,

How to become a committer or PMC member for Apache Fineract is here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Becoming+a+Committer

You have to be nominated by a current PMC member for Apache Fineract on the
private Fineract List. You gain committership or PMC membership through
continuous positive contributions(technical and non technical contributions
are valid, docs, JIRA ticets, QA, Product management, PR contributions etc)
over a period of time.

You don't get PMC membership by making a statement here.

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 8:33 AM Saransh Sharma 
wrote:

> I think the appointment of track chair was never done publicly or asked
> for from the community unless it was self appointed or appointed in
> shadows!
>
> If I am not on the list and how can I vote the talks !
>
> Silence is the consent but raising objection is needed if seen any time .
> There is no limit to that in terms of a time frame as you are pressing here
> .
>
> If Javier and Rich gets to decide certain rules and get it approved by
> silence then we could definitely use lazy consent at any given time to redo
> those decision.
>
>
> As a volunteer , I would like to share that community need to work
> together rather than a single benevolent dictator making rules on whims and
> small timeframes and making excuses on the fact that what others will say
> or it’s disrespectful for other volunteers or speakers if we change !
>
> In my opinion , this Stone Age practice of deciding things a decade ago
> need to be revisited
>
>
> On Monday, September 20, 2021, Rich Bowen  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2021/09/19 07:35:33, Muellners ApS  wrote:
>> > Community for some time, we have debated whether it is right for Track
>> > Chairs to self approve their own proposals in a public conf. - Apache
>> Con,
>> > organised by charitable donations.
>> >
>> > For whatever reasons, a single self appointed track chair should not
>> > approve his own proposals, as this sets up a very dangerous precedent in
>> > this community.
>> >
>> > I strongly object & condemn this type of deterioration of human values
>> in
>> > our society and this community.
>> >
>> > Alternate route is to continue the track by dropping the talks which the
>> > Track Chair has decided that he/she/they will present themselves.
>> > This also gives space for newer budding ideas to come forward.
>>
>> You were invited, on this list, to participate in the process. You
>> declined to do so. That thread is here:
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r54be0953f95399fbd28d124c6643a568e70fc9c631bf61b10e78833b%40%3Cdev.fineract.apache.org%3E
>>
>> You were also invited to help rate and select the talks, via the CFP
>> system. You declined that invitation also.
>>
>> You also declined to object when Javier was the track chair for this
>> track last year, and the year before that.
>>
>> As for whether track chairs can run their own talks - that was my
>> decision, not Javier's. And I made that decision more than a decade ago,
>> and have been consistent with it every year since then. Track chairs are,
>> by definition, subject matter experts, and excluding them from being
>> speakers would be self-defeating. So we don't do that. Nobody has objected
>> to it, because the track chair was, in every case, approved by the project
>> community. You, specifically, approved Javier as your track chair by your
>> silence, and by not volunteering for that committee.
>>
>> For whatever it's worth, Saransh, the rating of talks for this event
>> *was* run by an anoymized voting platform (ie, speakers name was not on the
>> abstract). And everyone who asked to be part of that review process was
>> granted access to do so. I note that your name is not on that list.
>>
>> This entire conversation is profoundly disrespectful to the HUNDREDS of
>> volunteer hours that went into putting this event together. And having this
>> conversation on this list, 2 days before the event is to start, would be
>> laughable if it wasn't so incredibly inappropriate.
>>
>> This entire dispute is about a requested change to the schedule that
>> happened less than a week before the conference starts. *I* am the one who
>> vetoed that change, not Javier. And I did so because events have deadlines,
>> and the request was long after an already-extended deadline.
>>
>> Join the plann...@apachecon.com list and be part of the solution next
>> year. Discussing *here* and *now* how ApacheCon should be run is neither
>> effective nor appropriate.
>>
>>
>
> --
> Saransh Sharma
> Research Partner
>
> Sent from my phone
> This mail is governed by Muellners®  IT policy.
> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents
> may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
> this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
> the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, 

ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Saransh Sharma]

I think the appointment of track chair was never done publicly or asked for
from the community unless it was self appointed or appointed in shadows!

If I am not on the list and how can I vote the talks !

Silence is the consent but raising objection is needed if seen any time .
There is no limit to that in terms of a time frame as you are pressing here
.

If Javier and Rich gets to decide certain rules and get it approved by
silence then we could definitely use lazy consent at any given time to redo
those decision.


As a volunteer , I would like to share that community need to work together
rather than a single benevolent dictator making rules on whims and small
timeframes and making excuses on the fact that what others will say or it’s
disrespectful for other volunteers or speakers if we change !

In my opinion , this Stone Age practice of deciding things a decade ago
need to be revisited


On Monday, September 20, 2021, Rich Bowen  wrote:

>
>
> On 2021/09/19 07:35:33, Muellners ApS  wrote:
> > Community for some time, we have debated whether it is right for Track
> > Chairs to self approve their own proposals in a public conf. - Apache
> Con,
> > organised by charitable donations.
> >
> > For whatever reasons, a single self appointed track chair should not
> > approve his own proposals, as this sets up a very dangerous precedent in
> > this community.
> >
> > I strongly object & condemn this type of deterioration of human values in
> > our society and this community.
> >
> > Alternate route is to continue the track by dropping the talks which the
> > Track Chair has decided that he/she/they will present themselves.
> > This also gives space for newer budding ideas to come forward.
>
> You were invited, on this list, to participate in the process. You
> declined to do so. That thread is here: https://lists.apache.org/threa
> d.html/r54be0953f95399fbd28d124c6643a568e70fc9c631bf61b10e78
> 833b%40%3Cdev.fineract.apache.org%3E
>
> You were also invited to help rate and select the talks, via the CFP
> system. You declined that invitation also.
>
> You also declined to object when Javier was the track chair for this track
> last year, and the year before that.
>
> As for whether track chairs can run their own talks - that was my
> decision, not Javier's. And I made that decision more than a decade ago,
> and have been consistent with it every year since then. Track chairs are,
> by definition, subject matter experts, and excluding them from being
> speakers would be self-defeating. So we don't do that. Nobody has objected
> to it, because the track chair was, in every case, approved by the project
> community. You, specifically, approved Javier as your track chair by your
> silence, and by not volunteering for that committee.
>
> For whatever it's worth, Saransh, the rating of talks for this event *was*
> run by an anoymized voting platform (ie, speakers name was not on the
> abstract). And everyone who asked to be part of that review process was
> granted access to do so. I note that your name is not on that list.
>
> This entire conversation is profoundly disrespectful to the HUNDREDS of
> volunteer hours that went into putting this event together. And having this
> conversation on this list, 2 days before the event is to start, would be
> laughable if it wasn't so incredibly inappropriate.
>
> This entire dispute is about a requested change to the schedule that
> happened less than a week before the conference starts. *I* am the one who
> vetoed that change, not Javier. And I did so because events have deadlines,
> and the request was long after an already-extended deadline.
>
> Join the plann...@apachecon.com list and be part of the solution next
> year. Discussing *here* and *now* how ApacheCon should be run is neither
> effective nor appropriate.
>
>

-- 
Saransh Sharma
Research Partner

Sent from my phone
This mail is governed by Muellners®  IT policy.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.

ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Saransh Sharma]

I think the appointment of track chair was never done publicly or asked for
from the community unless it was self appointed or appointed in shadows!

If I am not on the list and how can I vote the talks !

Silence is the consent but raising objection is needed if seen any time .
There is no limit to that in terms of a time frame as you are pressing here
.

If Javier and Rich gets to decide certain rules and get it approved by
silence then we could definitely use lazy consent at any given time to redo
those decision.


As a volunteer , I would like to share that community need to work together
rather than a single benevolent dictator making rules on whims and small
timeframes and making excuses on the fact that what others will say or it’s
disrespectful for other volunteers or speakers if we change !

In my opinion , this Stone Age practice of deciding things a decade ago
need to be revisited

I would like to use this time and platform to nominate myself as PMC .
Please vote using +1 and -1 if silence then that will counted as consent.

Let’s do it now why wait , past is gone why discuss that.


On Monday, September 20, 2021, Rich Bowen  wrote:

>
>
> On 2021/09/19 07:35:33, Muellners ApS  wrote:
> > Community for some time, we have debated whether it is right for Track
> > Chairs to self approve their own proposals in a public conf. - Apache
> Con,
> > organised by charitable donations.
> >
> > For whatever reasons, a single self appointed track chair should not
> > approve his own proposals, as this sets up a very dangerous precedent in
> > this community.
> >
> > I strongly object & condemn this type of deterioration of human values in
> > our society and this community.
> >
> > Alternate route is to continue the track by dropping the talks which the
> > Track Chair has decided that he/she/they will present themselves.
> > This also gives space for newer budding ideas to come forward.
>
> You were invited, on this list, to participate in the process. You
> declined to do so. That thread is here: https://lists.apache.org/threa
> d.html/r54be0953f95399fbd28d124c6643a568e70fc9c631bf61b10e78
> 833b%40%3Cdev.fineract.apache.org%3E
>
> You were also invited to help rate and select the talks, via the CFP
> system. You declined that invitation also.
>
> You also declined to object when Javier was the track chair for this track
> last year, and the year before that.
>
> As for whether track chairs can run their own talks - that was my
> decision, not Javier's. And I made that decision more than a decade ago,
> and have been consistent with it every year since then. Track chairs are,
> by definition, subject matter experts, and excluding them from being
> speakers would be self-defeating. So we don't do that. Nobody has objected
> to it, because the track chair was, in every case, approved by the project
> community. You, specifically, approved Javier as your track chair by your
> silence, and by not volunteering for that committee.
>
> For whatever it's worth, Saransh, the rating of talks for this event *was*
> run by an anoymized voting platform (ie, speakers name was not on the
> abstract). And everyone who asked to be part of that review process was
> granted access to do so. I note that your name is not on that list.
>
> This entire conversation is profoundly disrespectful to the HUNDREDS of
> volunteer hours that went into putting this event together. And having this
> conversation on this list, 2 days before the event is to start, would be
> laughable if it wasn't so incredibly inappropriate.
>
> This entire dispute is about a requested change to the schedule that
> happened less than a week before the conference starts. *I* am the one who
> vetoed that change, not Javier. And I did so because events have deadlines,
> and the request was long after an already-extended deadline.
>
> Join the plann...@apachecon.com list and be part of the solution next
> year. Discussing *here* and *now* how ApacheCon should be run is neither
> effective nor appropriate.
>
>

-- 
Saransh Sharma
Research Partner

Sent from my phone
This mail is governed by Muellners®  IT policy.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are 

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Saransh Sharma]

I think the appointment of track chair was never done publicly or asked for
from the community unless it was self appointed or appointed in shadows!

If I am not on the list and how can I vote the talks !

Silence is the consent but raising objection is needed if seen any time .
There is no limit to that in terms of a time frame as you are pressing here
.

If Javier and Rich gets to decide certain rules and get it approved by
silence then we could definitely use lazy consent at any given time to redo
those decision.


As a volunteer , I would like to share that community need to work together
rather than a single benevolent dictator making rules on whims and small
timeframes and making excuses on the fact that what others will say or it’s
disrespectful for other volunteers or speakers if we change !

In my opinion , this Stone Age practice of deciding things a decade ago
need to be revisited. Better start now then  year better.

I would like to propose Saransh Sharma as PMC if no one has any problem
with that in next three days then we can conclude this .

Please use +1 and -1 for your votes , note your silence will be used a
consent so please vote and let’s amend some nice changes in the community

Thanks


On Monday, September 20, 2021, Rich Bowen  wrote:

>
>
> On 2021/09/19 07:35:33, Muellners ApS  wrote:
> > Community for some time, we have debated whether it is right for Track
> > Chairs to self approve their own proposals in a public conf. - Apache
> Con,
> > organised by charitable donations.
> >
> > For whatever reasons, a single self appointed track chair should not
> > approve his own proposals, as this sets up a very dangerous precedent in
> > this community.
> >
> > I strongly object & condemn this type of deterioration of human values in
> > our society and this community.
> >
> > Alternate route is to continue the track by dropping the talks which the
> > Track Chair has decided that he/she/they will present themselves.
> > This also gives space for newer budding ideas to come forward.
>
> You were invited, on this list, to participate in the process. You
> declined to do so. That thread is here: https://lists.apache.org/
> thread.html/r54be0953f95399fbd28d124c6643a568e70fc9c631bf61b10e78833b%
> 40%3Cdev.fineract.apache.org%3E
>
> You were also invited to help rate and select the talks, via the CFP
> system. You declined that invitation also.
>
> You also declined to object when Javier was the track chair for this track
> last year, and the year before that.
>
> As for whether track chairs can run their own talks - that was my
> decision, not Javier's. And I made that decision more than a decade ago,
> and have been consistent with it every year since then. Track chairs are,
> by definition, subject matter experts, and excluding them from being
> speakers would be self-defeating. So we don't do that. Nobody has objected
> to it, because the track chair was, in every case, approved by the project
> community. You, specifically, approved Javier as your track chair by your
> silence, and by not volunteering for that committee.
>
> For whatever it's worth, Saransh, the rating of talks for this event *was*
> run by an anoymized voting platform (ie, speakers name was not on the
> abstract). And everyone who asked to be part of that review process was
> granted access to do so. I note that your name is not on that list.
>
> This entire conversation is profoundly disrespectful to the HUNDREDS of
> volunteer hours that went into putting this event together. And having this
> conversation on this list, 2 days before the event is to start, would be
> laughable if it wasn't so incredibly inappropriate.
>
> This entire dispute is about a requested change to the schedule that
> happened less than a week before the conference starts. *I* am the one who
> vetoed that change, not Javier. And I did so because events have deadlines,
> and the request was long after an already-extended deadline.
>
> Join the plann...@apachecon.com list and be part of the solution next
> year. Discussing *here* and *now* how ApacheCon should be run is neither
> effective nor appropriate.
>
>

-- 
Saransh Sharma
Research Partner

Sent from my phone
This mail is governed by Muellners®  IT policy.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
are not secure and cannot 

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Rich Bowen]

On 2021/09/19 07:35:33, Muellners ApS  wrote: 
> Community for some time, we have debated whether it is right for Track
> Chairs to self approve their own proposals in a public conf. - Apache Con,
> organised by charitable donations.
> 
> For whatever reasons, a single self appointed track chair should not
> approve his own proposals, as this sets up a very dangerous precedent in
> this community.
> 
> I strongly object & condemn this type of deterioration of human values in
> our society and this community.
> 
> Alternate route is to continue the track by dropping the talks which the
> Track Chair has decided that he/she/they will present themselves.
> This also gives space for newer budding ideas to come forward.

You were invited, on this list, to participate in the process. You declined to 
do so. That thread is here: 
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r54be0953f95399fbd28d124c6643a568e70fc9c631bf61b10e78833b%40%3Cdev.fineract.apache.org%3E

You were also invited to help rate and select the talks, via the CFP system. 
You declined that invitation also.

You also declined to object when Javier was the track chair for this track last 
year, and the year before that.

As for whether track chairs can run their own talks - that was my decision, not 
Javier's. And I made that decision more than a decade ago, and have been 
consistent with it every year since then. Track chairs are, by definition, 
subject matter experts, and excluding them from being speakers would be 
self-defeating. So we don't do that. Nobody has objected to it, because the 
track chair was, in every case, approved by the project community. You, 
specifically, approved Javier as your track chair by your silence, and by not 
volunteering for that committee.

For whatever it's worth, Saransh, the rating of talks for this event *was* run 
by an anoymized voting platform (ie, speakers name was not on the abstract). 
And everyone who asked to be part of that review process was granted access to 
do so. I note that your name is not on that list.

This entire conversation is profoundly disrespectful to the HUNDREDS of 
volunteer hours that went into putting this event together. And having this 
conversation on this list, 2 days before the event is to start, would be 
laughable if it wasn't so incredibly inappropriate.

This entire dispute is about a requested change to the schedule that happened 
less than a week before the conference starts. *I* am the one who vetoed that 
change, not Javier. And I did so because events have deadlines, and the request 
was long after an already-extended deadline.

Join the plann...@apachecon.com list and be part of the solution next year. 
Discussing *here* and *now* how ApacheCon should be run is neither effective 
nor appropriate.

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Saransh Sharma]

I think Javier, by acting in such a way you are yourself putting out a
message that you are making it personal .I request that it's not about you.

This is quite outlandish to think that I am asking you to drop your talk !
This is about the current process that needs governance change!

I invite you along with other members to come to an agreement that self
approval of their own talks should be avoided and in-fact applying an
independent online voting system could be used like a DAO "Decentralised
Autonomous Org" since the given nature of this kind of application and its
governance.

Although in the first instance, I would have never self appointed my own
talks !

Such kind of obnoxious behaviour makes me doubt !!
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 8:07 PM Javier Borkenztain  wrote:

> Ankit, Saransh, and others
>
> Enough of this little show you're putting together, where you make
> questions and answer them yourself.
>
> The time to ask questions about this edition of ApacheCon 2021 was during
> the Call For Presentations, as well as in my multiple requests for
> volunteers.
>
> Now is *not* the time to make any changes, including asking myself
> dropping any talk.
>
> All this discussions arises bc you proposed a complete talk change
> (speakers and topic) out of time and form, and now you are behaving
> childish.
>
> My energy is now focused on next week event, which is a great opportunity
> for us to gather and share.
>
> Good day.
> Javier
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 7:36:15, Saransh Sharma 
> wrote:
>
>> I agree that if appointed chair track self approves their own proposals
>> then it’s dangerous for the community.
>>
>> This leads to centralisation of the selection process , I wonder if this
>> kind of process has been laid out by Apache code of conduct .
>>
>> I would propose that community by and large discuss the idea of
>> appointing non business or independent chairs.
>>
>
> Welcome this discussion! Meanwhile, the
>
>
>> Looking at from legal perspective if a chair selects his /her talks or
>> tracks then I suppose  all other individual or contributors would want the
>> same to happen there should be some kind of limitations to the process
>> where these chairs could vote or ask to be voted by different community or
>> entities to get their talk selected .
>>
>> In my opinion we need to actively resolve this immediately
>>
>
>
>> On Sunday, September 19, 2021, Muellners ApS  wrote:
>>
>>> Community for some time, we have debated whether it is right for Track
>>> Chairs to self approve their own proposals in a public conf. - Apache Con,
>>> organised by charitable donations.
>>>
>>> For whatever reasons, a single self appointed track chair should not
>>> approve his own proposals, as this sets up a very dangerous precedent in
>>> this community.
>>>
>>> I strongly object & condemn this type of deterioration of human values
>>> in our society and this community.
>>>
>>> Alternate route is to continue the track by dropping the talks which the
>>> Track Chair has decided that he/she/they will present themselves.
>>> This also gives space for newer budding ideas to come forward.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 at 17.07, Javier Borkenztain 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Fineracters!

 ApacheCon 2021 virtual edition is almost here, the event will start next
 Tuesday 22nd, at 13:00 UTC.

 Here the general schedule from the event:
 https://www.apachecon.com/acah2021/tracks/
 Here the Fineract track:
 https://www.apachecon.com/acah2021/tracks/fineract.html

 You can register free (or optionally collaborate with the Apache
 Foundation) here: https://hopin.com/events/apachecon-2021-home

 At the end of each day, there will be a Birds of a Feather (BoF)
 session in each track, where we will gather for unstructured discussion of
 the project, related topics, content that was delivered during the day, or,
 really, anything at all.

 See you all there!!
 Javier

 [image: Logo] 
 *Javier Borkenztain* *| CEO*
 *e:* jav...@fiter.io
 *w:* fiter.io 
 *m:* +598 97980801
 [image: twitter icon]  [image: youtube
 icon]  [image:
 linkedin icon] 

 Sent via Superhuman 

 --
>>> Ankit
>>> Managing Partner
>>> Muellners Inc
>>>
>>> This mail is governed by Muellners[image: ®] IT policy.
>>> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents
>>> may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
>>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
>>> this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
>>> the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
>>> attachments. Any 

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Javier Borkenztain]

Ankit, Saransh, and others

Enough of this little show you're putting together, where you make questions 
and answer them yourself.

The time to ask questions about this edition of ApacheCon 2021 was during the 
Call For Presentations, as well as in my multiple requests for volunteers.

Now is *not* the time to make any changes, including asking myself dropping any 
talk.

All this discussions arises bc you proposed a complete talk change (speakers 
and topic) out of time and form, and now you are behaving childish.

My energy is now focused on next week event, which is a great opportunity for 
us to gather and share.

Good day.

Javier

On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 7:36:15, Saransh Sharma < sara...@muellners.org > wrote:

> 
> I agree that if appointed chair track self approves their own proposals
> then it’s dangerous for the community.
> 
> 
> 
> This leads to centralisation of the selection process , I wonder if this
> kind of process has been laid out by Apache code of conduct .
> 
> 
> 
> I would propose that community by and large discuss the idea of appointing
> non business or independent chairs.
> 
> 

Welcome this discussion! Meanwhile, the

> 
> 
> 
> Looking at from legal perspective if a chair selects his /her talks or
> tracks then I suppose  all other individual or contributors would want the
> same to happen there should be some kind of limitations to the process
> where these chairs could vote or ask to be voted by different community or
> entities to get their talk selected .
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion we need to actively resolve this immediately
> 
> 

> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, September 19, 2021, Muellners ApS < ankit@ muellners. org (
> an...@muellners.org ) > wrote:
> 
> 
>> Community for some time, we have debated whether it is right for Track
>> Chairs to self approve their own proposals in a public conf. - Apache Con,
>> organised by charitable donations.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> For whatever reasons, a single self appointed track chair should not
>> approve his own proposals, as this sets up a very dangerous precedent in
>> this community.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I strongly object & condemn this type of deterioration of human values in
>> our society and this community.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Alternate route is to continue the track by dropping the talks which the
>> Track Chair has decided that he/she/they will present themselves.
>> 
>> This also gives space for newer budding ideas to come forward.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 at 17.07, Javier Borkenztain < javier@ fiter. io (
>> jav...@fiter.io ) > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Hi Fineracters!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ApacheCon 2021 virtual edition is almost here, the event will start next
>>> Tuesday 22nd, at 13:00 UTC.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Here the general schedule from the event: https://www.apachecon. 
>>> com/acah2021/tracks/
>>> ( https://www.apachecon.com/acah2021/tracks/ )
>>> 
>>> Here the Fineract track: https://www.apachecon. 
>>> com/acah2021/tracks/fineract.
>>> html ( https://www.apachecon.com/acah2021/tracks/fineract.html )
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You can register free (or optionally collaborate with the Apache
>>> Foundation) here: https://hopin.com/ events/apachecon-2021-home (
>>> https://hopin.com/events/apachecon-2021-home )
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> At the end of each day, there will be a Birds of a Feather (BoF) session
>>> in each track, where we will gather for unstructured discussion of the
>>> project, related topics, content that was delivered during the day, or,
>>> really, anything at all.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> See you all there!!
>>> 
>>> Javier
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Logo ( https://www.fiter.io )
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *Javier Borkenztain* *| CEO*
>>> *e:* javier@ fiter. io ( jav...@fiter.io )
>>> *w:* fiter.io ( http://www.fiter.io )
>>> *m:* +598 97980801 twitter icon ( https://twitter.com/Fiter_io ) youtube
>>> icon ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfWztdFtHI3PwaSLAEcwTNQ ) linkedin
>>> icon ( https://www.linkedin.com/company/fiter-io )
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent via Superhuman ( https://sprh.mn/?vip=jav...@fiter.io )
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Ankit
>> 
>> Managing Partner
>> 
>> Muellners Inc
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy.
>> 
>> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents
>> may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
>> this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
>> the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
>> attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
>> of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
>> prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
>> monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
>> compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
>> are not 

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Saransh Sharma]

I agree that if appointed chair track self approves their own proposals
then it’s dangerous for the community.

This leads to centralisation of the selection process , I wonder if this
kind of process has been laid out by Apache code of conduct .

I would propose that community by and large discuss the idea of appointing
non business or independent chairs.

Looking at from legal perspective if a chair selects his /her talks or
tracks then I suppose  all other individual or contributors would want the
same to happen there should be some kind of limitations to the process
where these chairs could vote or ask to be voted by different community or
entities to get their talk selected .

In my opinion we need to actively resolve this immediately

On Sunday, September 19, 2021, Muellners ApS  wrote:

> Community for some time, we have debated whether it is right for Track
> Chairs to self approve their own proposals in a public conf. - Apache Con,
> organised by charitable donations.
>
> For whatever reasons, a single self appointed track chair should not
> approve his own proposals, as this sets up a very dangerous precedent in
> this community.
>
> I strongly object & condemn this type of deterioration of human values in
> our society and this community.
>
> Alternate route is to continue the track by dropping the talks which the
> Track Chair has decided that he/she/they will present themselves.
> This also gives space for newer budding ideas to come forward.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 at 17.07, Javier Borkenztain  wrote:
>
>> Hi Fineracters!
>>
>> ApacheCon 2021 virtual edition is almost here, the event will start next
>> Tuesday 22nd, at 13:00 UTC.
>>
>> Here the general schedule from the event: https://www.apachecon.
>> com/acah2021/tracks/
>> Here the Fineract track: https://www.apachecon.
>> com/acah2021/tracks/fineract.html
>>
>> You can register free (or optionally collaborate with the Apache
>> Foundation) here: https://hopin.com/events/apachecon-2021-home
>>
>> At the end of each day, there will be a Birds of a Feather (BoF) session
>> in each track, where we will gather for unstructured discussion of the
>> project, related topics, content that was delivered during the day, or,
>> really, anything at all.
>>
>> See you all there!!
>> Javier
>>
>> [image: Logo] 
>> *Javier Borkenztain* *| CEO*
>> *e:* jav...@fiter.io
>> *w:* fiter.io 
>> *m:* +598 97980801
>> [image: twitter icon]  [image: youtube
>> icon]  [image:
>> linkedin icon] 
>>
>> Sent via Superhuman 
>>
>> --
> Ankit
> Managing Partner
> Muellners Inc
>
> This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy.
> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents
> may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
> this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
> the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
> attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
> of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
> prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
> monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
> compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
> are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
> intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
> to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
>


-- 
Saransh Sharma
Research Partner

Sent from my phone
This mail is governed by Muellners®  IT policy.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.

Re: ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Muellners ApS]

Community for some time, we have debated whether it is right for Track
Chairs to self approve their own proposals in a public conf. - Apache Con,
organised by charitable donations.

For whatever reasons, a single self appointed track chair should not
approve his own proposals, as this sets up a very dangerous precedent in
this community.

I strongly object & condemn this type of deterioration of human values in
our society and this community.

Alternate route is to continue the track by dropping the talks which the
Track Chair has decided that he/she/they will present themselves.
This also gives space for newer budding ideas to come forward.

Thanks

On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 at 17.07, Javier Borkenztain  wrote:

> Hi Fineracters!
>
> ApacheCon 2021 virtual edition is almost here, the event will start next
> Tuesday 22nd, at 13:00 UTC.
>
> Here the general schedule from the event:
> https://www.apachecon.com/acah2021/tracks/
> Here the Fineract track:
> https://www.apachecon.com/acah2021/tracks/fineract.html
>
> You can register free (or optionally collaborate with the Apache
> Foundation) here: https://hopin.com/events/apachecon-2021-home
>
> At the end of each day, there will be a Birds of a Feather (BoF) session
> in each track, where we will gather for unstructured discussion of the
> project, related topics, content that was delivered during the day, or,
> really, anything at all.
>
> See you all there!!
> Javier
>
> [image: Logo] 
> *Javier Borkenztain* *| CEO*
> *e:* jav...@fiter.io
> *w:* fiter.io 
> *m:* +598 97980801
> [image: twitter icon]  [image: youtube icon]
>  [image:
> linkedin icon] 
>
> Sent via Superhuman 
>
> --
Ankit
Managing Partner
Muellners Inc

This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.

ApacheCon 2021 is almost here! Join us and have some fun!

[Javier Borkenztain]

Hi Fineracters!

ApacheCon 2021 virtual edition is almost here, the event will start next 
Tuesday 22nd, at 13:00 UTC.

Here the general schedule from the event: 
https://www.apachecon.com/acah2021/tracks/

Here the Fineract track: https://www.apachecon.com/acah2021/tracks/fineract.html

You can register free (or optionally collaborate with the Apache Foundation) 
here: https://hopin.com/events/apachecon-2021-home

At the end of each day, there will be a Birds of a Feather (BoF) session in 
each track, where we will gather for unstructured discussion of the project, 
related topics, content that was delivered during the day, or, really, anything 
at all.

See you all there!!

Javier

Logo ( https://www.fiter.io )

*Javier Borkenztain* *| CEO* *e:* jav...@fiter.io
*w:* fiter.io ( http://www.fiter.io )
*m:* +598 97980801 twitter icon ( https://twitter.com/Fiter_io ) youtube icon ( 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfWztdFtHI3PwaSLAEcwTNQ ) linkedin icon ( 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/fiter-io )

Sent via Superhuman ( https://sprh.mn/?vip=jav...@fiter.io )