Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Hi, Berin. All, On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:18:44 +1000 (Subject: Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom) Berin Lautenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd like to say, "Those who would write articles in the newsletter > > draft, are worthy to become members, because they really care > > for the foundation as a whole". Also, I'll give an announcement > > (=call) at members@ not community@ in the next time. > > The above argument starts to get dangerously close > to the old umbrella argument. "I carry my > umbrella when it's raining, therefore if I am > carrying my umbrella it must be raining". So I > might agree that people who put a lot of effort > into a newsletter are good ASF people. But the > fact that others are not is completely meaningless. Well, of course, I do not intend such kind of things. To tell the truth, I talked about the participation into the OSS communities from my country, with one of the ASF members , the other day (in private mail). This could be absolutely related to the things mentioned above. I wrote: " Plus: Japanese companies use the method of scoring by deducting points not by adding points, when judging the successors and measuring the employees' wages. This is a big problem that the Japan-Society has. (Probably this is one of the problems which can be spotlighted when talking about the japanese developers in opensource projects)" Mr. X wrote with an astonishment: " Fuuuck! You are touching a nerve here! The opensource world works *exactly* the opposite: you *earn* points when you make mistakes and you publicly apologize. (because we know you will make mistakes, otherwise how do you learn?) This *covering my ass to show I don't make mistakes* attitude is strongly disliked in healthy communities. if the japanese society works the other way around, it will be impossible for them to earn points because they will do everything to prevent them to show the mistakes they make. Which will result in being ignored, another thing that would scare them away because they don't know that the values are reversed! Wow, I have to take notes on this. This is really important." -- I wanted to mention that the "Apache Newsletter" could become one of the "adding points" measurements, Not "deducting points" measurements. In fact, those who can write articles for XX (sub)project can overview the XX (sub)project. This would really help the board members (and PMCs) to overlook a large number of projects within the Apache.Org, I am sure. -- I *DO* sympathize with the vision mentioned above (from Mr. X) and want to keep such minds. Really *Open* mind. "An ounce of practice is worth a pound of theory.", they say. ... I want to put his/her teachings into practice, here in apache.org. On the other hand, Japan itself is now suffering from the "bureaucratism" disease of society, because anyone do want to hide their mistakes and do not raise their hands. However, I'd been really afraid of the *abuse* of the word "meritocracy" because it could be interpret as "eliticism" in japanese, furthermore "eliticism" can easily be associated with the "bureaucratism". * NOTE: "bureaucratism" hates the "NEW" / "MODERN" ideas. Always *people say "NO". ... Lack of "nobless oblige" Yeah, of course I am one of the Japanese fellows and I do want to hide my mistakes. Yes, now the time has come. I have many other things to be done. Also, to be honest, I am still struggling with and wandering off how I should behave in this society. > Cheers, > Berin Thank you :) I hope to hear from you in the next newsletter. Sincerely, --- Tetsuya Kitahata -- Terra-International, Inc. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.terra-intl.com/ (Accredited Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument Facilitator) http://www.hbdi.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 01:26 Europe/Rome, Stephen McConnell wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: I said nothing about documentation, process, policy or accountability. LOL We certainly agree on this! :-) Agree about what? that I didn't say what you previously accused me of having said? This is getting silly. -- Stefano. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Jim Jagielski wrote: -- Andrew C. Oliver|acoliverapache.org |2003-08-22| 144| Nicola Ken Barozzi |nicolakenapache.org|2003-09-19| 142| Rodent of Unusual Si|coarapache.org |2003-09-21| 141| Greg Stein |gsteinapache.org |2003-09-19| 68| Tetsuya Kitahata|tetsuyaapache.org |2003-09-21| 57|Becky! ve Noel J. Bergman |noelapache.org |2003-09-21| 57|Microsoft Paul Hammant|hammantapache.org |2003-09-19| 56| Steven Noels|stevennapache.org |2003-09-21| 55| Jim Jagielski |jimapache.org |2003-09-19| 50|Apple Mai Sander Striker |strikerapache.org |2003-09-18| 48|Microsoft Aaron Bannert |aaronclove.org |2003-08-08| 46|Apple Mai Sam Ruby|rubysapache.org|2003-09-20| 44| Davanum Srinivas|dimsapache.org |2003-09-18| 41| Ted Leung |twlapache.org |2003-09-19| 36| James Strachan |jstrachanapache.org|2003-08-22| 30|Apple Mai -- (e.g. Ken.CoarGolux.Com => coarapache.org ... ) This shows absolutely nothing more than the number of Emails sent to the list (I'm guessing). So what? Or are we somehow equating quantity to quality? It may also mean (and from my experience it usually does), that the top email posters are the ones that think less before posting, thus /possibly/ decreasing the signal/noise ratio of the list. In essence, I make a lot of noise ;-) -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
> From: Tetsuya Kitahata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'd like to say, "Those who would write articles in the newsletter > draft, are worthy to become members, because they really care > for the foundation as a whole". Also, I'll give an announcement > (=call) at members@ not community@ in the next time. The above argument starts to get dangerously close to the old umbrella argument. "I carry my umbrella when it's raining, therefore if I am carrying my umbrella it must be raining". So I might agree that people who put a lot of effort into a newsletter are good ASF people. But the fact that others are not is completely meaningless. This is open source here. People do what they want to do. Some people are great at newsletters. I'm not. Can't think of anything where I would be of less use. Does that make me unworthy of anything? I don't think so (but then I'm a bit biased :>). There is no silver bullet in an open source community for determining value. Each person has their own value that they bring. The fun part is trying to bind all those different desires and talents into a working whole. Cheers, Berin This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Tetsuya, > > Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. > ROTFL. Statistics won't tell a lie. > Would you like to damn off the Vadim's > http://www.apache.org/~vgritsenko/stats/index.html No. However, someone naively looking at them, and not knowing about mirroring and the inconsistent state across the ASF with respect to that transition would be likely to draw incorrect beliefs. Statistics can be terribly misleading, while appearing to say something correct and meaningful. You posted statistics related to volume of posting. But why? I don't consider it a meaningful statistic. Consider: - the person who devotes time and energy to the utterly glamourless and totally thankless job of handling all of the Foundation's paperwork. - someone who sees a need by various projects that is not being filled, fills that need at considerable personal financial expense, and to compound it, sees the effort (rightly or wrongly) raise concernss over oversight and security. - people who are quitely working behind the scenes to make sure that mail is delivered, accounts are created, servers are upgraded, etc. None of that is represented in statistics related to e-mail volume. There are quite a few people whose efforts go unsung, unappreciated, and undervalued by most. But if you want to consider just people who express some thought on a particular issue, such as the incubator, please answer me this ... to whose words should I listen: the prattling fool who goes on and on with little thought, or the wise haiku master who expresses deep concepts in a few well-chosen and long-thought-out words that inspire those who hear them? I deliberately picked extremes, and am *not* ascribing those characteristics to anyone (OK, Roy can be the haiku master), but I trust that I have made my point: quantity and quality are not related. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: I said nothing about documentation, process, policy or accountability. LOL We certainly agree on this! :-) -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
> From: Tetsuya Kitahata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 12:04 AM > On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:25:35 -0400 > Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > the foundation *as a whole*. presumably you care about the welfare > > of japan, but don't know what's going in in kita-kyushu unless > > you live there. that doesn't invalidate your concern about the > > country overall, nor make you non-japanese. > > Nice analogy :) .. Well, as a japanese, of course I am > caring for what is happening in Kita-Kyushu City, Sapporo City, > Nagoya City, as well as the capital of Japan, Tokyo. > People in Kita-Kyushu are our Amigos. No prejudice. So you know about every little village in Japan aswell? > We are often watching Television, Newspaper, Internet. > > .. Newspaper .. very nice. > > I am trying to gather the news from various projects > in the foundation, including httpd/apr, etc. as newsletter > the other day. > In the Issue #1, I could not hear any words from the guys > in httpd (Only, Sander made a slight change .. WebServer -> Server :), > so I had to write by myself. You didn't need to write anything, you wanted to write something. The reason the HTTP Server crowd didn't submit a story is probably simple: they are focussing on other things. Furthermore, the HTTP Server gets coverage via http://www.apacheweek.com/. > In this situation, can we say, > "The ASF members are caring for the whole benefits of foundation"?? I don't see how not contributing to a new initiative in the form of a newsletter is equivalent to not caring for the foundation. I find that implication quite insulting. > "The Apache Newsletter" is a good community process and gives > the whole benefits to the foundation. Why did not they > cooperate with me? (Thanx >> those who cooperated with me) > > I'd like to say, "Those who would write articles in the newsletter > draft, are worthy to become members, because they really care > for the foundation as a whole". Bah. This really gives me a bad taste in my mouth. Without the efforts people put in, there would be _no_ news to report. Also, it's the members which nominate new members. Having someone decide on worthiness out of the blue doesn't sound right. > Also, I'll give an announcement > (=call) at members@ not community@ in the next time. Please no. That would probably be the only list I was on that you had missed in your prodding for contributions to the newsletter. Believe me, if there were people with reporting aspirations within the ASF, you've reached them. I personally think there are not that many around. Not surprising, since when you look at projects, the majority does not like writing documentation either. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
In the meantime, despite the choice of rhetoric, and making it sound as if there was an unaccountable process, Stephen has posted a page that does warrant review, especially by those who have actual Incubator experience. http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?IncubatorMussings I suspect that there are linguistic and policy changes that the Incubator PMC will want to make, but I do think it represents an earnest effort. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 10:12:17 -0400 "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Statistics would not tell a lie. No prejudice, no favoritism. > Actually, in the USA we have a famous expression: > Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. > Statistics provide a false sense of objectivity. Ahaha. ROTFL. Statistics won't tell a lie. Those who make "BAD" use of it or interpret it in a wrong manner would tell a lie. That's all. :) Would you like to damn off the Vadim's http://www.apache.org/~vgritsenko/stats/index.html [Apache Stats] ??!?! (As for me, I really admire his great works) __ Tetsuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 17:22 Europe/Rome, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Stephen McConnell wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Ah, at the end, if a committer considers this unfair, maybe he/she should question him/herself before questioning hundreds of his/her peers. Umm, ... and the "standard member line" gets rolled out once again to justify the absence of incubator documentation, process, policy, and accountability. stephen, this carp of yours is really starting to get up my nose. ah, the good old days of recontextualization fights at avalon-dev. I was missing them so much... NOT!!! stefano did nothing of the sort; here's the *whole* part of his message which you conveniently snipped: There is no policy yet, but if the incubator was to make a policy, I would be against having an ASF committer which is not a member or officer being an incubating sponsor. Why? simple enough. If that person was believed good for the job by his/her peers, he would have been already a member or an officer. Or, his/her action would make him/her visible for the next election, if deserved. Ah, at the end, if a committer considers this unfair, maybe he/she should question him/herself before questioning hundreds of his/her peers. there's nothing in there making the least attempt to justify anything about the incubator. it's a statement of stefano's opinion of how he'd feel *if* a particular policy were developed, and why he feels that way. so, please: knock it off. -- Stefano. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 14:50 Europe/Rome, Stephen McConnell wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Ah, at the end, if a committer considers this unfair, maybe he/she should question him/herself before questioning hundreds of his/her peers. Umm, ... and the "standard member line" gets rolled out once again to justify the absence of incubator documentation, process, policy, and accountability. I just stated that I would be against a committer being a incubation sponsor. I said nothing about documentation, process, policy or accountability. -- Stefano - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Sander Striker wrote: > Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:59:34 +0200 > From: Sander Striker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom > > > From: Tetsuya Kitahata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 12:47 PM > > > On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:21:07 +0200 > > "Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Please, do not post stats of any kind to say something about merit. > > > > Okay, Sander. I will not. I promise. > > ;) > > > By the way, > > > > > Same for posts; > > > it's quality and quantity. And stats don't measure quality. > > > > How can you measure the quantity? Do you guys have nice > > *scientific* tools? To tell the truth, I have already > > posted to apache.org mailing lists (including jakarta/xml/ws/http...) > > around 1,000 (I've counted it up... today :-). > > Yes, I have a nice *tool* for these kind of things, however, > > I am afraid you do not have. > > Personally, I don't measure quantity at all. I'm not sure who does. About the only time I ever pay any attention to quantity is when considering a potential new committer (or considering proposing someone). But even then, quantity and longevity (i.e. sustained contributions over time), tone (helpful/sarcastic/asshole), usefulness (well-researched bug reports are worth more to *me* than diatribes; so are answers to questions on the user mailing lists worth more than patches) and other factors overlap themselves in complex, non-linear ways. There's no way for me to define any sort of algorithm that could be used to calculate a statistic for measuring the overall "worth" of someone's contributions. Besides, even if *I* could do so, it wouldn't be any more useful to *you* than your typical benchmark results, because the test conditions would be different for you than for me :-). > > > In such situation, (and I am embodin' cross-project participation) > > how can you measure *my* participation in the apache.org activities? > > Participation is subjective. There is no science involved to be honest. > For the rest, we don't use stats. If someone does something in > your project and you think "hey, that's really nice", that's what > sticks. A few of those usually buys commit access. Sustained > contributions over a longer period usually lead to addition to > the PMC*. All pretty subjective. The test is really if the > group is of the same mind. > > > ... This is really *what* I've wanted to know, because half of the > > *ASF members* are parcitipating "only" http.apache.org mailing lists, > > AFAICS. > > Because half of the ASF members are working on the HTTP Server project. > I'm sure you'll see a lot of members on the APR project aswell. Both > PMC's have few people who aren't members. I've also seen the ratio change substantially over the three years that I've been a Member. But even that doesn't matter - the Apache folks who work on HTTPd and APR are just as much a part of the Apache community as I am (who work primarily on a few Jakarta related things). And vice versa. As with trying to score merit on posting volumes, Tetsuya is pulling a particular statistic out of the air that does not have much relevance to anything. At best, it's the obvious outcome of the historical mechanism by which the ASF came into existence -- so what? > > > Please tell me. Gentlemen. > > > Sander Craig - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:25:35 -0400 Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the foundation *as a whole*. presumably you care about the welfare > of japan, but don't know what's going in in kita-kyushu unless > you live there. that doesn't invalidate your concern about the > country overall, nor make you non-japanese. Nice analogy :) .. Well, as a japanese, of course I am caring for what is happening in Kita-Kyushu City, Sapporo City, Nagoya City, as well as the capital of Japan, Tokyo. People in Kita-Kyushu are our Amigos. No prejudice. We are often watching Television, Newspaper, Internet. .. Newspaper .. very nice. I am trying to gather the news from various projects in the foundation, including httpd/apr, etc. as newsletter the other day. In the Issue #1, I could not hear any words from the guys in httpd (Only, Sander made a slight change .. WebServer -> Server :), so I had to write by myself. In this situation, can we say, "The ASF members are caring for the whole benefits of foundation"?? "The Apache Newsletter" is a good community process and gives the whole benefits to the foundation. Why did not they cooperate with me? (Thanx >> those who cooperated with me) I'd like to say, "Those who would write articles in the newsletter draft, are worthy to become members, because they really care for the foundation as a whole". Also, I'll give an announcement (=call) at members@ not community@ in the next time. Sincerely, __ Tetsuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: i refuse to be sucked any further into one of your confusions. It's good to see we agree! Clearly "confusion" is a central topic that underlines that issues addressed in this thread. Obviously I'm in good company as my confusion pales into insignificance when viewed in the context of broader matrix of incubator confusion. Hense this thread and related actions to peel away some of the fog and get to down to stubstance. With that substance established, the potential value and contributions of Apache Members "as a suppliment" to a structural framework becomes a rational and pagmatic concept that reflects, embrasses what I belive it means to be "an Apache Member". Stephen. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Stephen McConnell wrote: > > I'll "knock it off" when there are a sufficiently complete set of > policies and procedures in place (i.e. documented and adopted) such that > the need for Member status is clearly identified as the legal aspect of > representation of the Foundation (and/or any other quantifiable and > accountable attribute this forum sees fit to attribute). that's a reasonable goal. claiming 'the self-perpetuating members club strikes again' is not only unreasonable and completely irrelevant, but insulting as well. *that* is the part i want you to stop. it contributes nothing afaics, and is in fact destructive. > With such a framework in place the necessity for particular "Members" to > discriminate between Member versus non-Member as a justification for the > decision on policy simply disappears. So lets "knock it off" with the > "knock it off" and focus instead on getting roles, responsibilities and > ultimate accountability of the Incubator in place. that has been my focus all along, except when i have been drawn into side issues by your handwaving. > How about you? how about me what? i've been contributing, defending, suggesting, and considering the issues all along. at this point i refuse to be sucked any further into one of your confusions. -- #kenP-(} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 08:18 Europe/Rome, Steven Noels wrote: ... but not every PMC chair is a member (i.e. myself). Things can get quite funny, that way. It seems like there's some cracks in the Matrix. It might look, admittedly, strange that an ASF officer is not an ASF member, but for the PMC chair role, the person has been selected because he cares very much about one project: this doesn't make the person 'automatically' caring for the entire foundation. Sure. I'm fully aware of this careful distinction. [I'm not pointing fingers to anyone, just stating an abstract concept] Don't worry - message well received. I would, personally, be against a PMC chair which is not a member as the incubator sponsor for a project which doesn't reside under the PMC he/she leads. After I've read this sentence three times, I can agree with: It might well just be me, but I see no cracks in our Matrix. Thanks, -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source Java & XMLAn Orixo Member Read my weblog athttp://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/ stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Stephen McConnell wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Ah, at the end, if a committer considers this unfair, maybe he/she should question him/herself before questioning hundreds of his/her peers. Umm, ... and the "standard member line" gets rolled out once again to justify the absence of incubator documentation, process, policy, and accountability. stephen, this carp of yours is really starting to get up my nose. stefano did nothing of the sort; here's the *whole* part of his message which you conveniently snipped: There is no policy yet, but if the incubator was to make a policy, I would be against having an ASF committer which is not a member or officer being an incubating sponsor. Why? simple enough. If that person was believed good for the job by his/her peers, he would have been already a member or an officer. Or, his/her action would make him/her visible for the next election, if deserved. Ah, at the end, if a committer considers this unfair, maybe he/she should question him/herself before questioning hundreds of his/her peers. there's nothing in there making the least attempt to justify anything about the incubator. it's a statement of stefano's opinion of how he'd feel *if* a particular policy were developed, and why he feels that way. so, please: knock it off. Ken: I'll "knock it off" when there are a sufficiently complete set of policies and procedures in place (i.e. documented and adopted) such that the need for Member status is clearly identified as the legal aspect of representation of the Foundation (and/or any other quantifiable and accountable attribute this forum sees fit to attribute). This is distinctly different from the justification based of differentiation between members and non-members that Stefano describes above. By addressing the *real* issue (policies and procedures) that establish these roles and responsibilities we have a framework for accountability. With such a framework in place the necessity for particular "Members" to discriminate between Member versus non-Member as a justification for the decision on policy simply disappears. So lets "knock it off" with the "knock it off" and focus instead on getting roles, responsibilities and ultimate accountability of the Incubator in place. I should have a first draft ready in a couple of hours. How about you? Stephen. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
-- Andrew C. Oliver|acoliverapache.org |2003-08-22| 144| Nicola Ken Barozzi |nicolakenapache.org|2003-09-19| 142| Rodent of Unusual Si|coarapache.org |2003-09-21| 141| Greg Stein |gsteinapache.org |2003-09-19| 68| Tetsuya Kitahata|tetsuyaapache.org |2003-09-21| 57|Becky! ve Noel J. Bergman |noelapache.org |2003-09-21| 57|Microsoft Paul Hammant|hammantapache.org |2003-09-19| 56| Steven Noels|stevennapache.org |2003-09-21| 55| Jim Jagielski |jimapache.org |2003-09-19| 50|Apple Mai Sander Striker |strikerapache.org |2003-09-18| 48|Microsoft Aaron Bannert |aaronclove.org |2003-08-08| 46|Apple Mai Sam Ruby|rubysapache.org|2003-09-20| 44| Davanum Srinivas|dimsapache.org |2003-09-18| 41| Ted Leung |twlapache.org |2003-09-19| 36| James Strachan |jstrachanapache.org|2003-08-22| 30|Apple Mai -- (e.g. Ken.CoarGolux.Com => coarapache.org ... ) This shows absolutely nothing more than the number of Emails sent to the list (I'm guessing). So what? Or are we somehow equating quantity to quality? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: > > This is what I found it hard for me to comprehend. > > The current *members* are caring for the "entire" foundation, > including the jakarta/xml/ws/cocoon/james/maven/ant/db, etc.. ? the foundation *as a whole*. presumably you care about the welfare of japan, but don't know what's going in in kita-kyushu unless you live there. that doesn't invalidate your concern about the country overall, nor make you non-japanese. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Stephen McConnell wrote: > > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > >> Ah, at the end, if a committer considers this unfair, maybe he/she >> should question him/herself before questioning hundreds of his/her peers. > > Umm, > >... and the "standard member line" gets rolled out once again >to justify the absence of incubator documentation, process, >policy, and accountability. stephen, this carp of yours is really starting to get up my nose. stefano did nothing of the sort; here's the *whole* part of his message which you conveniently snipped: > There is no policy yet, but if the incubator was to make a policy, I > would be against having an ASF committer which is not a member or > officer being an incubating sponsor. > > Why? simple enough. If that person was believed good for the job by > his/her peers, he would have been already a member or an officer. Or, > his/her action would make him/her visible for the next election, if > deserved. > > Ah, at the end, if a committer considers this unfair, maybe he/she > should question him/herself before questioning hundreds of his/her > peers. there's nothing in there making the least attempt to justify anything about the incubator. it's a statement of stefano's opinion of how he'd feel *if* a particular policy were developed, and why he feels that way. so, please: knock it off. -- #kenP-(} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: > Statistics would not tell a lie. No prejudice, no favoritism. Actually, in the USA we have a famous expression: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. Statistics provide a false sense of objectivity. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
> From: Tetsuya Kitahata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 3:07 PM > On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:28:06 +0200 > Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It might look, admittedly, strange that an ASF officer is not an ASF > > member, but for the PMC chair role, the person has been selected > > because he cares very much about one project: this doesn't make the > > person 'automatically' caring for the entire foundation. > > This is what I found it hard for me to comprehend. > > The current *members* are caring for the "entire" foundation, > including the jakarta/xml/ws/cocoon/james/maven/ant/db, etc.. ? Caring for each and every individual project and caring for the foundation as a whole are different things. I don't even think there is anyone with enough time on his hands to track each and every project we have. That's one of the reasons for the oversight hierarchy. [...] > If I have a confidence that all the "current" *members* are > caring for the "entire" foundation, I would be sure that the Incubator > project would also go well and be in successful (Because incubation > requires the membership). If not, I am afraid Incubator Project > itself would become just an obstacle. You're missing the point I'm afraid. The incubator is there to prevent projects under our umbrella that are out of touch with the thoughts of the foundation. And also, to gate all the legal stuff related to project adoption through one point. When the incubator was proposed I hoped it could serve to guide new committers to find their way around the ASF aswell. If we would allow projects to become ASF projects 'without obstacles', we might aswell open a sourceforge like portal. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:28:06 +0200 Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It might look, admittedly, strange that an ASF officer is not an ASF > member, but for the PMC chair role, the person has been selected > because he cares very much about one project: this doesn't make the > person 'automatically' caring for the entire foundation. This is what I found it hard for me to comprehend. The current *members* are caring for the "entire" foundation, including the jakarta/xml/ws/cocoon/james/maven/ant/db, etc.. ? For example, a current ASF member (Mr. XX) really knows what is "XML-Forrest" and what is "Jakarta-Alexandria"? (I am afraid not ... so, it was the motivation of the creation of "The Apache Newsletter", to tell the truth) If I have a confidence that all the "current" *members* are caring for the "entire" foundation, I would be sure that the Incubator project would also go well and be in successful (Because incubation requires the membership). If not, I am afraid Incubator Project itself would become just an obstacle. Sincerely, __ Tetsuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Ah, at the end, if a committer considers this unfair, maybe he/she should question him/herself before questioning hundreds of his/her peers. Umm, ... and the "standard member line" gets rolled out once again to justify the absence of incubator documentation, process, policy, and accountability. Stephen. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Berin Lautenbach wrote: Stephen McConnell wrote: If there is interest, I could try and re-word the content I put together on the Sponsor responsibilities such that the role of Sponsor is more oriented towards evangalist/champion, complementing the role of Shepard. Absolutely! The document was put there as a seed to get people adding content and changing it until it meets reality. All additions welcome! Berin: I'll jump into this this afternoon and post a summary of what I have done back to this list later this evening. Cheers, Steve. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 08:18 Europe/Rome, Steven Noels wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: As I understand what is being said, a project is to have a sponsor who is an ASF Member or Officer. Note that the Incubator PMC Chair is an ASF Officer, as is every PMC Chair. ... but not every PMC chair is a member (i.e. myself). Things can get quite funny, that way. It seems like there's some cracks in the > Matrix. It might look, admittedly, strange that an ASF officer is not an ASF member, but for the PMC chair role, the person has been selected because he cares very much about one project: this doesn't make the person 'automatically' caring for the entire foundation. [I'm not pointing fingers to anyone, just stating an abstract concept] I would, personally, be against a PMC chair which is not a member as the incubator sponsor for a project which doesn't reside under the PMC he/she leads. It might well just be me, but I see no cracks in our Matrix. -- Stefano. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 05:40 Europe/Rome, Stephen McConnell wrote: Henri Yandell wrote: On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Steven Noels wrote: I just want to say that this requirement of sponsors which should be members was totally unclear to me when I started talking and working with the BEA peeps (Cliff Schmidt). So even if this was meant to be by design, it wasn't very obvious from the information available at the time. I'm a bit confused, so my apologies if this question is answered somewhere. Am I reading it right that to be a sponsor for a project in the incubator one has to be an ASF member? Based on the aggregation of information of the last few days - it appears that this is *not* official policy. However, it does appear that this is assumed policy in some quarters. There is no policy yet, but if the incubator was to make a policy, I would be against having an ASF committer which is not a member or officer being an incubating sponsor. Why? simple enough. If that person was believed good for the job by his/her peers, he would have been already a member or an officer. Or, his/her action would make him/her visible for the next election, if deserved. Ah, at the end, if a committer considers this unfair, maybe he/she should question him/herself before questioning hundreds of his/her peers. -- Stefano. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:30:37 +0200 (Subject: RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom) "Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Tetsuya Kitahata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 6:16 AM > > > I see. but here's one question. Does this "meritocracy" > > encourage the inactive *ASF members* into the retirement status > > or hibernation status? > > This is something for the ASF membership to worry about. > IMO, inactiveness deserves a definition. I took the word "meritocracy" rather as "eliticism" ... maybe ... "eliticism" can easily be tied to and associated with the "bureaucratism" (Since the country, Japan, is now suffering this prickly disease ... and still struggling against this ... need structural reforms) I worried the bureaucratization of the ASF ... probably. Metabolism (replace the old with the new) is the best way to avoid the bureaucratization. Okay, as you mentioned, "inactiveness deserves a definition". I hope the membership of the ASF would be fair and disinterested enough to attract those who are the ASF committers (like me) and contributors. Thanks, Really appreciate your comments, Sander! __ Tetsuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 06:15 Europe/Rome, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:25:53 -0400 Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: "Meritocracy"? yes, meritocracy. the entire asf is a meritocracy, as is each project within it. I see. but here's one question. Does this "meritocracy" encourage the inactive *ASF members* into the retirement status or hibernation status? it would, if the ASF members had consensus on what "inactive" means, or how to encourage without offending. > Also, I assume that all the ASF members have signed the "new" CLA as a matter of course ... is this true? ??? what is the 'new' CLA? Here is a good stats on this ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list. : Hope this helps :-) not really, at least not for me, since i don't know what point you're trying to make.. Eheh, I should have put that on the threads of "[VOTE] dims for incubator PMC" or "[VOTE] New Chair (Re: cvs commit : incubator STATUS)" ... :-) Also, I will make use of this stats in "Please make me a committer of Incubator Project: incubator-site" campaign :-) I admit I'm lost as much as Ken on this. What the hell are you talking about? can't you be more explicit, please? -- Stefano. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
On Sunday, Sep 21, 2003, at 06:08 Europe/Rome, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:49:24 -0400 (Subject: RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom) "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Meritocracy"? Here is a good stats on this ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list. Excuse me, but volume of messages has nothing to do with merit. Statistics would not tell a lie. No prejudice, no favoritism. Utterly wrong. Statistics are numbers. Numbers don't imply meaning in an absolute way. It's not the numbers that are important, but the meaning that is associated to them. You can use statistics in *good* manner. Not "make bad use". what? banchmarks have always had a different meaning depending on what side of the fence you look at them. I would say the opposite: it's hard to see statistics used in a good manner as they can be made to mean almost anything. Counting email messages (just like counting CVS commits) has no merit meaning associated to them, just like Noel suggests citing Roy as an example. And one counter-example is enough to throw your model down the drain. if you run agora instead, you'll see a different picture. yet, I was careful not to indicate any number, because numbers tend to irritate people since they are so easy to compare. -- Stefano. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: > > In such situation, (and I am embodin' cross-project participation) > how can you measure *my* participation in the apache.org activities? > > ... This is really *what* I've wanted to know, because half of the > *ASF members* are parcitipating "only" http.apache.org mailing lists, > AFAICS. is your question 'how is merit measured'? if so, it's a good question; if not, i'm unclear (again!) on what point you're trying to make. as a couple of examples of why we frown on statistics: well, you've already seen why it would be unfair to regard roy lightly just because he doesn't post a lot. and on other occasions, people who have changed the copyright year embedded in the code can be (and mistakenly have been) regarded as being very active on the basis of the statistics, even if that's the only contribution they've made recently. so much for using statistics on quantity to measure merit. and quality is highly subjective and not statistically measurable. ergo, no stats. :-) -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Steven Noels wrote: > Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: >> >> perfectly understandable, since it isn't official policy yet. there >> *isn't* an official policy at the moment. > > ... which could hardly qualify things as being "by design". 'by design' in that specific proposal, which has not (yet :-) been adopted. right now there really aren't any firm and documented policies, other than the basic 'copyright, clas, licence, and code' ones. the proposal that, for some reason, everyone seems to be regarding as concrete current policy is just that: a proposal to codify and firm up some policies and procedures. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
> From: Tetsuya Kitahata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 12:47 PM > On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:21:07 +0200 > "Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Please, do not post stats of any kind to say something about merit. > > Okay, Sander. I will not. I promise. ;) > By the way, > > > Same for posts; > > it's quality and quantity. And stats don't measure quality. > > How can you measure the quantity? Do you guys have nice > *scientific* tools? To tell the truth, I have already > posted to apache.org mailing lists (including jakarta/xml/ws/http...) > around 1,000 (I've counted it up... today :-). > Yes, I have a nice *tool* for these kind of things, however, > I am afraid you do not have. Personally, I don't measure quantity at all. I'm not sure who does. > In such situation, (and I am embodin' cross-project participation) > how can you measure *my* participation in the apache.org activities? Participation is subjective. There is no science involved to be honest. For the rest, we don't use stats. If someone does something in your project and you think "hey, that's really nice", that's what sticks. A few of those usually buys commit access. Sustained contributions over a longer period usually lead to addition to the PMC*. All pretty subjective. The test is really if the group is of the same mind. > ... This is really *what* I've wanted to know, because half of the > *ASF members* are parcitipating "only" http.apache.org mailing lists, > AFAICS. Because half of the ASF members are working on the HTTP Server project. I'm sure you'll see a lot of members on the APR project aswell. Both PMC's have few people who aren't members. > Please tell me. Gentlemen. Sander *) with APR and HTTP Server. Can't really speak for other projects. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:21:07 +0200 "Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please, do not post stats of any kind to say something about merit. Okay, Sander. I will not. I promise. By the way, > Same for posts; > it's quality and quantity. And stats don't measure quality. How can you measure the quantity? Do you guys have nice *scientific* tools? To tell the truth, I have already posted to apache.org mailing lists (including jakarta/xml/ws/http...) around 1,000 (I've counted it up... today :-). Yes, I have a nice *tool* for these kind of things, however, I am afraid you do not have. In such situation, (and I am embodin' cross-project participation) how can you measure *my* participation in the apache.org activities? ... This is really *what* I've wanted to know, because half of the *ASF members* are parcitipating "only" http.apache.org mailing lists, AFAICS. Please tell me. Gentlemen. -- Also, "about quality" ... if you guys would like to adhere to the "quality" of participations/contributions ( & posts), I am afraid it would become against the policy of OSS , soon ... "participation" and "contribution" would be highly recommended and appreciated in OSS communities in *any* forms (however trifling they are), I've heard. Am I right? wrong? Incubate me, please. Where has it gone? .. APATCHY spirits? Regards. __ Tetsuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Stephen McConnell wrote: If there is interest, I could try and re-word the content I put together on the Sponsor responsibilities such that the role of Sponsor is more oriented towards evangalist/champion, complementing the role of Shepard. Absolutely! The document was put there as a seed to get people adding content and changing it until it meets reality. All additions welcome! Cheers, Berin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Stephen McConnell wrote: It would be really helpful if this page were included in the Home menu on the Incuabator web site. Also helpful would be the inclusion of the first link (roles and responsibilities) on the page concerning the incubation process. the wiki pages are not authoritative; they're for developing. at least that's how i see them, since anyone in the world can change them. and the roles and responsibilities are still under development and discussion. That's why they were put in Wiki initially - but at the same time it would be great to focus some of the discussion that has gone on in the past few days into words into these pages so that they can be moved over to the site. I keep harping on this - I would *love* to see a charter for the Incubator. Again, if there is going to be so much discussion, then focussing it on a document that eventually gets voted on captures things so that we can keep from going over the same ground. I don't mind good discussion, but I do mind seeing the same ground being gone over every three months because we don't document the common ground. There is a stake-in-the ground there. I can re-write it from scratch if its wrong! You have a willing volunteer here to document some of this stuff and get it to a point that everyone agrees on. Use him :>. Cheers, Berin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
> From: Tetsuya Kitahata [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 6:16 AM > I see. but here's one question. Does this "meritocracy" > encourage the inactive *ASF members* into the retirement status > or hibernation status? This is something for the ASF membership to worry about. IMO, inactiveness deserves a definition. > Also, I assume that all the ASF members have signed the "new" CLA > as a matter of course ... is this true? > >>> Here is a good stats on this ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list. >> : >>> Hope this helps :-) >> not really, at least not for me, since i don't know what point >> you're trying to make.. > > Eheh, > > I should have put that on the threads of > "[VOTE] dims for incubator PMC" > or > "[VOTE] New Chair (Re: cvs commit : incubator STATUS)" > ... :-) No, you shouldn't have. Stats are considered more damaging than doing good. Please do not post stats. > Also, I will make use of this stats in > "Please make me a committer of Incubator Project: incubator-site" > campaign :-) I advise you not to do that. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 3:49 AM >> "Meritocracy"? >> Here is a good stats on this ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list. > > Excuse me, but volume of messages has nothing to do with merit. Roy T. > Fielding posts very infrequently in my experience, but each of his messages > is worth reading. He has a way of cutting through reams of BS with a single > message, and getting others back on track. Not to mention that we avoid posting these kinds of stats since they can be misinterpreted and damaging to the community. No numbers on how many commits a person does or mails a person posts will tell the full image. It may even present a blurred image (someone needing one commit to get things right versus someone needing ten). Same for posts; it's quality and quantity. And stats don't measure quality. Please, do not post stats of any kind to say something about merit. Sander - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: I haven't read through your material, but unless I am wrong about what I wrote last night, an ASF Officer also qualifies. that seems eminently reasonable. Ah. The crack in the Matrix widens. So I would have been able to shepherd XMLBeans through then. Nice to know! (which, BTW, doesn't say I'm unhappy with the people involved in the current XMLBeans incubation - quite the contrary) -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source Java & XMLAn Orixo Member Read my weblog athttp://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/ stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Noel J. Bergman wrote: As I understand what is being said, a project is to have a sponsor who is an ASF Member or Officer. Note that the Incubator PMC Chair is an ASF Officer, as is every PMC Chair. ... but not every PMC chair is a member (i.e. myself). Things can get quite funny, that way. It seems like there's some cracks in the Matrix. -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source Java & XMLAn Orixo Member Read my weblog athttp://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/ stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Steven Noels wrote: I just want to say that this requirement of sponsors which should be members was totally unclear to me when I started talking and working with the BEA peeps (Cliff Schmidt). So even if this was meant to be by design, it wasn't very obvious from the information available at the time. Ted took over my role at some point in time, something which I greatly appreciated. Still, if I would have known this before, I might have been looking for a sponsor sooner. perfectly understandable, since it isn't official policy yet. there *isn't* an official policy at the moment. ... which could hardly qualify things as being "by design". I lack time currently to work constructively with the Incubator PMC, but it's this feeling which - I assume - annoys people: rules haven't been designed - there invented along the way, and not through a community process. -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source Java & XMLAn Orixo Member Read my weblog athttp://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/ stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Henri Yandell wrote: > Steven Noels wrote: > > I just want to say that this requirement of sponsors which should be > > members was totally unclear to me when I started talking and working > > with the BEA peeps (Cliff Schmidt). So even if this was meant to be by > > design, it wasn't very obvious from the information available at the time. > I'm a bit confused, so my apologies if this question is answered > somewhere. Am I reading it right that to be a sponsor for a project > in the incubator one has to be an ASF member? As I understand what is being said, a project is to have a sponsor who is an ASF Member or Officer. Note that the Incubator PMC Chair is an ASF Officer, as is every PMC Chair. But as far as I am concerned, the more ASF Community members people who are co-sponsoring/supporting a project the better. I don't know about you, but I feel a lot better seeing a good list of names associated with a project intended for incubation. In any event, let's let the Incubator PMC get their new Chair in place, which needs to be done ASAP, let them formalize the policies that are consolidating, and let's get the pending podlings into incubation. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:25:53 -0400 Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: > > > > "Meritocracy"? > yes, meritocracy. the entire asf is a meritocracy, as is each > project within it. I see. but here's one question. Does this "meritocracy" encourage the inactive *ASF members* into the retirement status or hibernation status? Also, I assume that all the ASF members have signed the "new" CLA as a matter of course ... is this true? > > Here is a good stats on this ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list. > : > > Hope this helps :-) > not really, at least not for me, since i don't know what point > you're trying to make.. Eheh, I should have put that on the threads of "[VOTE] dims for incubator PMC" or "[VOTE] New Chair (Re: cvs commit : incubator STATUS)" ... :-) Also, I will make use of this stats in "Please make me a committer of Incubator Project: incubator-site" campaign :-) Sincerely, --- Tetsuya Kitahata -- Terra-International, Inc. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.terra-intl.com/ (Accredited Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument Facilitator) http://www.hbdi.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:49:24 -0400 (Subject: RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom) "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Meritocracy"? > > Here is a good stats on this ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list. > Excuse me, but volume of messages has nothing to do with merit. Statistics would not tell a lie. No prejudice, no favoritism. You can use statistics in *good* manner. Not "make bad use". However, > Roy T. Fielding posts very infrequently in my experience, but each of > his messages is worth reading. really agree. What he says is pregnant with meaning. __ Tetsuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Henri Yandell wrote: On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Steven Noels wrote: I just want to say that this requirement of sponsors which should be members was totally unclear to me when I started talking and working with the BEA peeps (Cliff Schmidt). So even if this was meant to be by design, it wasn't very obvious from the information available at the time. I'm a bit confused, so my apologies if this question is answered somewhere. Am I reading it right that to be a sponsor for a project in the incubator one has to be an ASF member? Based on the aggregation of information of the last few days - it appears that this is *not* official policy. However, it does appear that this is assumed policy in some quarters. Stephen. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Steven Noels wrote: > I just want to say that this requirement of sponsors which should be > members was totally unclear to me when I started talking and working > with the BEA peeps (Cliff Schmidt). So even if this was meant to be by > design, it wasn't very obvious from the information available at the time. I'm a bit confused, so my apologies if this question is answered somewhere. Am I reading it right that to be a sponsor for a project in the incubator one has to be an ASF member? Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: > > "Meritocracy"? yes, meritocracy. the entire asf is a meritocracy, as is each project within it. > Here is a good stats on this ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list. : > Hope this helps :-) not really, at least not for me, since i don't know what point you're trying to make.. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
> "Meritocracy"? > Here is a good stats on this ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list. Excuse me, but volume of messages has nothing to do with merit. Roy T. Fielding posts very infrequently in my experience, but each of his messages is worth reading. He has a way of cutting through reams of BS with a single message, and getting others back on track. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:16:38 -0400 Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > because they haven't yet *demonstrated* enough merit/understanding to > be nominated for membership. or perhaps they've been nominated but > declined to accept, which i think also means they don't believe enough > in the basic framework for them to be suitable for mentoring someone > else through it. > not at all. this is a meritocracy, not a democracy. members are > members by virtue of having demonstrated merit. something coming > through the incubator is intended to be part of the foundation's > projects -- which are owned by the members -- and so having the > mentoring and observation in the hands of a member makes perfect > sense. "Meritocracy"? Here is a good stats on this ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list. -- Andrew C. Oliver|acoliverapache.org |2003-08-22| 144| Nicola Ken Barozzi |nicolakenapache.org|2003-09-19| 142| Rodent of Unusual Si|coarapache.org |2003-09-21| 141| Greg Stein |gsteinapache.org |2003-09-19| 68| Tetsuya Kitahata|tetsuyaapache.org |2003-09-21| 57|Becky! ve Noel J. Bergman |noelapache.org |2003-09-21| 57|Microsoft Paul Hammant|hammantapache.org |2003-09-19| 56| Steven Noels|stevennapache.org |2003-09-21| 55| Jim Jagielski |jimapache.org |2003-09-19| 50|Apple Mai Sander Striker |strikerapache.org |2003-09-18| 48|Microsoft Aaron Bannert |aaronclove.org |2003-08-08| 46|Apple Mai Sam Ruby|rubysapache.org|2003-09-20| 44| Davanum Srinivas|dimsapache.org |2003-09-18| 41| Ted Leung |twlapache.org |2003-09-19| 36| James Strachan |jstrachanapache.org|2003-08-22| 30|Apple Mai -- (e.g. Ken.CoarGolux.Com => coarapache.org ... ) Hope this helps :-) __ Tetsuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ P.S. It is apparent that if I also use [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] for making this stats, Paul would be a King "beyond doubt" :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Stephen McConnell wrote: > > It would be really helpful if this page were included in the Home menu > on the Incuabator web site. Also helpful would be the inclusion of the > first link (roles and responsibilities) on the page concerning the > incubation process. the wiki pages are not authoritative; they're for developing. at least that's how i see them, since anyone in the world can change them. and the roles and responsibilities are still under development and discussion. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Noel J. Bergman wrote: Stephen, I haven't read through your material, but unless I am wrong about what I wrote last night, an ASF Officer also qualifies. Berin Lautenbach suggested gathering and collating material from this discussion on the Wiki. Some related pages are: http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?IncubatorRolesAndResponsibilities Thanks - this is useful material. One thing immediately apparent is the absence of information about the existance/role/responsibilities of a Sponsor as distinct from the role of Shepard. Looking at the material I put together relative to the material already detailed with respect to the role of shepard I see several overlaps. If there is interest, I could try and re-word the content I put together on the Sponsor responsibilities such that the role of Sponsor is more oriented towards evangalist/champion, complementing the role of Shepard. http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Incubator It would be really helpful if this page were included in the Home menu on the Incuabator web site. Also helpful would be the inclusion of the first link (roles and responsibilities) on the page concerning the incubation process. Stephen. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > I haven't read through your material, but unless I am wrong about what I > wrote last night, an ASF Officer also qualifies. that seems eminently reasonable. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Stephen McConnell wrote: > > Are there any Sponsor reponsibilities that I am missing here? i think that participation in the incubator pmc, particularly during these formative times, would be very valuable. it would keep the sponsor informed of the developing policies and procedures, and conversely keep the pmc informed of the usefulness (or onerousness) of them from the podling's standpoint. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Steven Noels wrote: > > I just want to say that this requirement of sponsors which should be > members was totally unclear to me when I started talking and working > with the BEA peeps (Cliff Schmidt). So even if this was meant to be by > design, it wasn't very obvious from the information available at the time. > > Ted took over my role at some point in time, something which I greatly > appreciated. Still, if I would have known this before, I might have been > looking for a sponsor sooner. perfectly understandable, since it isn't official policy yet. there *isn't* an official policy at the moment. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Stephen, I haven't read through your material, but unless I am wrong about what I wrote last night, an ASF Officer also qualifies. Berin Lautenbach suggested gathering and collating material from this discussion on the Wiki. Some related pages are: http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?IncubatorRolesAndResponsibiliti es http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Incubator The first one is the one that he started back in July for just this purpose. I think that I added sufficient links to the second that one can navigate to most other pages from there. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: For example, if a Member undertakes such a resonsibility, to whom is the member responsible and what would be the scope of such a responsibility? to the podling and the incubator pmc, to see that everything gets done and done properly. similarly to the foundation, with the additional responsibility of only sponsoring a podling which, in the member's judgement, will be an asset to the asf. From this I can draw the following conclusion: A Member, acting in the capacity of a sponsor of a podling, has certain responsibilities towards the podling and the Incubator PMC. Here is an initial attempt to detail said "certain responsibilities": Responsibilities of a Members towards the podling - * to liase between Apache Administration and podling on matters concerning CLA submission and aknowledgement * to liase between Apache Administration and podling on matters concerning infrastructre suport (mailing lists, CVS, account establishment, etc.) * to assist the podling on matters concerning the resolution of license transfers, copyright assignments, and/or software grants where applicable * to provide where as as appropriate, guidance on matters concerning Apache policies and practices, including the establishment of its internal steering committee Responsibilities of a Members towards the Incubator PMC --- * to notify the PMC of the completion of CLA submissions * to provide updates to the PMC on the status of license grants (where and as appropriate) * to provide on request the PMC a summary of the progress and status of a podling (including recommendations for continuation, termination, or exit of a podling from the incubation process) Are there any Sponsor reponsibilities that I am missing here? What I am aiming at is a summary of everything a Member should be aware of when accepting the role of Sponsor, the set of responsibilitiues that a podling can expect to be provided by the Sponsor, and the expectations from the PMC towards the Sponsor. Stephen. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Stephen McConnell wrote: I am specific asking this in the context of the incubator policies. If I understand correctly, the policies require project sponsorship by a member and from what member only sheparding. While parhaps with best intent - it is excluding non-members from sponsorship and sheparding of new projects. correct and by design. part of the purpose of the incubator is to make sure new projects fit into our technical and cultural framework. assigning the mentoring process to a member, who has become a member by virtue of demonstrating knowledge of the framework, makes sense. allowing j random contributor who may or may not have a clear picture to mentor does *not* make sense, at least not to me. (Coming in late since this thread was somewhat hidden by the funny threading display in Thinderbird) I just want to say that this requirement of sponsors which should be members was totally unclear to me when I started talking and working with the BEA peeps (Cliff Schmidt). So even if this was meant to be by design, it wasn't very obvious from the information available at the time. Ted took over my role at some point in time, something which I greatly appreciated. Still, if I would have known this before, I might have been looking for a sponsor sooner. -- Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source Java & XMLAn Orixo Member Read my weblog athttp://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/ stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Stephen McConnell wrote: > > The words "the sponsor should take responsibility" is something I agree > with and is the first tangible link to a rationale between sponsor and > Member that I have seen so far. then i think we have been having a significant disconnect. i think the link has been very clearly identified. > For example, if a Member undertakes such a > resonsibility, to whom is the member responsible and what would be the > scope of such a responsibility? to the podling and the incubator pmc, to see that everything gets done and done properly. similarly to the foundation, with the additional responsibility of only sponsoring a podling which, in the member's judgement, will be an asset to the asf. > p.s. Please keep in mind that I looking at this in terms of documeted > incubation procedures which are not fully crystallised yet. > - not in terms of a specific projects, Members, or non-Members. then i'll expect to hear no more from you about 'discrimination against non-members.' -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Noel J. Bergman wrote: What is the Incubator's purpose? What I am told from multiple sources (I have asked about this out of interest), is that the Incubator is to be used whenever a substantial codebase (a sub-project) is brought in from outside the ASF, regardless of whether it is going to be a sub-project or a new TLP. As I understand it, the Incubator PMC is charged with ensuring not just successful community building, but the legal protection of the Foundation. In my view, the sponsor should take responsibility, and not leave it up to the Incubator, but the Incubator PMC is going to act as a gatekeeper making *sure* that it happens. The words "the sponsor should take responsibility" is something I agree with and is the first tangible link to a rationale between sponsor and Member that I have seen so far. Can I ask you to fill this out in a little more detail. For example, if a Member undertakes such a resonsibility, to whom is the member responsible and what would be the scope of such a responsibility? The answers to these questions will go a long way to addressing the subject of this thread. Stephen. p.s. Please keep in mind that I looking at this in terms of documeted incubation procedures - not in terms of a specific projects, Members, or non-Members. SJM -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Stephen, The following is synthesized from numerous conversations, messages, etc. It represents my understanding. Hopefully, if I have gotten any aspects wrong, someone will correct it (and me). Please put this in context. There have been questions as to what criteria should exist for incubation, and how to bring projects into the Incubator. The Incubator PMC is trying to address the issues, while providing adequate oversight manageable by the PMC. If they say that a project is eligible for incubation if there is a Member wanting to sponsor it and it is clear of legal entanglements, that is actually improving access to the Incubator. I believe that you used the term "country club." Corporation is more accurate. Take a look at the Bylaws. The ASF is a legal Corporation. Members, Officers, and PMCs are all present as legal entities within the Bylaws. I believe that other options were said to be sponsorship by an existing PMC, which means sponsorship by the PMC Chair, who is an Officer (VP) of the Foundation; or by the ASF Board. What is the Incubator's purpose? What I am told from multiple sources (I have asked about this out of interest), is that the Incubator is to be used whenever a substantial codebase (a sub-project) is brought in from outside the ASF, regardless of whether it is going to be a sub-project or a new TLP. As I understand it, the Incubator PMC is charged with ensuring not just successful community building, but the legal protection of the Foundation. In my view, the sponsor should take responsibility, and not leave it up to the Incubator, but the Incubator PMC is going to act as a gatekeeper making *sure* that it happens. The Incubator PMC is charged by the Foundation with making sure that the project has satisfied all legal issues before being allowed to move into the Foundation proper. Because its focus is on incubation on a regular basis, the Incubator PMC is more likely to be aware of the issues than others. If that understanding is correct, it certainly fits with the scenario that Nicola Ken put forth. He appeared to suggest that the people responsible for incubation should include both the Sponsor and a PMC member acting as an "incubation specialist." Nicola Ken seems to be referring to some recent incubation experiences to explain why he feels that it is important to have both to ensure proper oversight. So this is all about legal oversight, Stephen, not exclusion. Do you imagine that the best way to incubate a project would be with a Sponsor, a PMC member, and a group of new committers? No, of course you don't; the question is rhetorical. If you did, you would not be raising this issue with, I am sure, the best intentions. I'm sure that you agree that such a scenario would not be conducive to incubating projects that work well with other ASF projects. When working with Alex to help prepare the Directory project for proposed incubation, one of the primary keys to success in my mind was finding interested people and related projects within the ASF with which to collaborate, and structuring the project in such as way as to facilitate win-win collaboration. Collaboration, not exclusion. The fact that a Sponsor may be required by the Incubator PMC to provide project oversight does not exclude what I hope would be your very active participation! Anything else would be counter-productive. Being there to help provide the lattice work for the podling's Community, and participating in its development is invaluable, Stephen. You asked to whom a Member is accountable. You should also ask the flip-side of that question, and ask for what a Member is responsible. Because becoming a Member means being entrusted with shared responsibility for the ASF as a whole. And things you view as privileges are largely the flip-side of new responsibilities. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Stephen McConnell wrote: > Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: >> >>correct and by design. part of the purpose of the incubator is to >>make sure new projects fit into our technical and cultural framework. >>assigning the mentoring process to a member, who has become a member >>by virtue of demonstrating knowledge of the framework, makes sense. >> > > But also excludes non-Members irrespective of their technical/culteral > affiliation with the subject and Apache. correct. what is the problem? the foundation is the members, not non-members, regardless of how savvy the latter may be. what non-members in particular do you feel are being shut out? > Nobody is talking about j random. This is a question as to why Membership > is a prerequisite. So long as membership is a prerequisite the policies > exclude other members of the Apache community from sponsorship or > sheperding. correct. i have already explained that. however, i'll try again. > They may be strongly associated with a project, perhaps on > an existing PMC, maybe a member of the board, and well integrated into > the Apache Way, and yet - for some reason, that individial is barred from > sponsoring and sheparding a project. because they haven't yet *demonstrated* enough merit/understanding to be nominated for membership. or perhaps they've been nominated but declined to accept, which i think also means they don't believe enough in the basic framework for them to be suitable for mentoring someone else through it. > There are seperate questions here. What will and will not become a > part of the foundation should be a decision on the Board (either > directly or via a existing PMC). i think you have a misunderstanding about how things work in the foundation. the members are the ultimate authority. they delegate (by voting) much of the responsibility and authority for operating the foundation to the board. one of the aspect of operation that currently happens to lie with the board is the decision concerning new projects. and the board has created the incubator project to handle that and related issues. the chain of authority is clear, and ends with the members. the members *are* the foundation, and their authority trumps anything else. > That subject is distinclty different > from the subject of discrimination between Members and non-Members > relating to sponsoring and sheparding. not at all. this is a meritocracy, not a democracy. members are members by virtue of having demonstrated merit. something coming through the incubator is intended to be part of the foundation's projects -- which are owned by the members -- and so having the mentoring and observation in the hands of a member makes perfect sense. if you are concerned because some areas of endeavour seem to be under-represented in the membership -- such as the jakarta bits -- well, that goes back to people being under-educated and not nominating meritorious people for membership, or saying they didn't want to be members because they saw no reason for it. which in turn leads back to one of the reasons the incubator was created: to try and correct the under-education. here is a perfect demonstration of one of the reasons for becoming a member: so you can have an impact on the direction of the foundation as a whole. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Stephen McConnell wrote: I am specific asking this in the context of the incubator policies. If I understand correctly, the policies require project sponsorship by a member and from what member only sheparding. While parhaps with best intent - it is excluding non-members from sponsorship and sheparding of new projects. correct and by design. part of the purpose of the incubator is to make sure new projects fit into our technical and cultural framework. assigning the mentoring process to a member, who has become a member by virtue of demonstrating knowledge of the framework, makes sense. But also excludes non-Members irrespective of their technical/culteral affiliation with the subject and Apache. allowing j random contributor who may or may not have a clear picture to mentor does *not* make sense, at least not to me. Nobody is talking about j random. This is a question as to why Membership is a prerequisite. So long as membership is a prerequisite the policies exclude other members of the Apache community from sponsorship or sheperding. They may be strongly associated with a project, perhaps on an existing PMC, maybe a member of the board, and well integrated into the Apache Way, and yet - for some reason, that individial is barred from sponsoring and sheparding a project. Given a policy that equates to an exclusion of Apache contributors - they needs to be some form of accountability by members towards non-members on matters concerning incubation. why? the foundation is and is owned by the members, not by the non-members. the members have a perfectly legitimate right to determine what will and will not become part of the foundation. There are seperate questions here. What will and will not become a part of the foundation should be a decision on the Board (either directly or via a existing PMC). That subject is distinclty different from the subject of discrimination between Members and non-Members relating to sponsoring and sheparding. Stephen. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Stephen McConnell wrote: > > Given a policy that equates to an exclusion of Apache > contributors - they needs to be some form of accountability by members > towards non-members on matters concerning incubation. i forgot to add: this is not a democracy. it is a meritocracy. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
Stephen McConnell wrote: > > I am specific asking this in the context of the incubator policies. If > I understand correctly, the policies require project sponsorship by a > member and from what member only sheparding. While parhaps with best > intent - it is excluding non-members from sponsorship and sheparding of > new projects. correct and by design. part of the purpose of the incubator is to make sure new projects fit into our technical and cultural framework. assigning the mentoring process to a member, who has become a member by virtue of demonstrating knowledge of the framework, makes sense. allowing j random contributor who may or may not have a clear picture to mentor does *not* make sense, at least not to me. > Given a policy that equates to an exclusion of Apache > contributors - they needs to be some form of accountability by members > towards non-members on matters concerning incubation. why? the foundation is and is owned by the members, not by the non-members. the members have a perfectly legitimate right to determine what will and will not become part of the foundation. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ASF member role - accountable to whom
... and, to whom is the ASF Member accountable? In all contexts, to himself/herself, but if you mean in terms of ASF related behavior, that would be governed by our Bylaws and policies. To imply that ASF Members are not accountable would be a horrid stretch. I am specific asking this in the context of the incubator policies. If I understand correctly, the policies require project sponsorship by a member and from what member only sheparding. While parhaps with best intent - it is excluding non-members from sponsorship and sheparding of new projects. Given a policy that equates to an exclusion of Apache contributors - they needs to be some form of accountability by members towards non-members on matters concerning incubation. Stephen. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ASF member role - accountable to whom
>>>ASF Member status continues to maintain a certain club quality >>>within which privaliges ebb-and-flow toi sute the moment). > >>Huh? >> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msg No=2002 > > I want you to think of two societies (a) a small society that > establishes a board which creates the notion of membership by > invitation which influences the evolution of Apache via the > incubator A "small" society that established a legal non-profit organization for the common good, a process for growth, and which created an Incubator to help ensure that growth was met with legal oversight, as well as the PMC process providing the same for established projects. Along with legal protection for its contributors, which requires oversight to preserve. > as opposed to (b) a broader and more open society the elects > members that are charged with and accountable to its electorate > community for the evolution of Apache via the incubator. > Which of these two views do you subscribe to? You put forth (a) sound like its a bad thing, but let me point out that the ASF started as just the titular HTTP web server, a project that I and many others have never worked on. The ASF today has grown tremendously in scope from that beginning. And the Member roster is beginning to reflect that as new Members are elected. > ... and, to whom is the ASF Member accountable? In all contexts, to himself/herself, but if you mean in terms of ASF related behavior, that would be governed by our Bylaws and policies. To imply that ASF Members are not accountable would be a horrid stretch. AFAICS, ASF Members come in all sizes and shapes. The only thing that they necessarily have in common is that others perceive in them the desire to see the Foundation flourish, and trust them to help make that happen. Please note that in the most recent election of Members, the roster grew by over 20%. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
