On 2021/09/19 07:35:33, Muellners ApS <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.
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.
