On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 02/02/2012 20:19, Bilal S wrote: > > I am willing to learn but finding the Apache related processes > > singularly difficult to deal with. We are working with mailing list, > > in the age of websites and social media. > > Correct. This is deliberate. Mailing lists are the lowest common > denominator and allow the widest possible participation. Not everyone > has an always on internet connection with high bandwidth. è Thanks for clarifying. Is the goal to design for the lowest common dominator? This would mean that if 99% of the user base had access to better tools and 1% did not you would design for the 1%? If so, this would be a disservice to the user community, wouldn’t it? There are more improved design principles that have found use on the web for the last decade and have proven to serve their user base better. For example, either graceful degradation or progressive enhancement would be able to help the whole population without sacrifice. Why not adopt one at the ASF? > For those > folks with bandwidth to spare that prefer a forum interface, there are > third parties that provide it. I love that the tools we use at the ASF > work just as well when I (or anyone else) is at the end of a very slow > mobile data connection in the middle of almost nowhere even though > trying to view a web page from the same place is pretty much impossible > these days. > è Also not sure that the issue of better and easier to use tools and communication is a bandwidth problem alone, and thus, concluding that people with low bandwidth would prefer email as lone mechanism of communication does not follow automatically. There are rich experiences possible for people with low bandwidth connections. Apps running in browsers making use of partial connections, local storage and enhanced programmability have blown this boundary a while ago. Similarly, on the mobile side, there are smart apps aware of connectivity. There are many examples, but I would like to point at Google for example implementations. A quick tour of google mobile apps and google groups online shows well designed interaction for any bandwidth. Why can’t this be a goal at ASF? > > > There is no easy to find contact form anywhere on the Apache > > websites. > > Also correct. The primary form of communication within Apache > communities are the mailing lists and these should be obviously linked > from each project's home page. In Tomcat's case, you'll find the forum > based interfaces linked from the same place. > > è Thanks for clarifying. Thus, I am challenging ASF to be more open and do better than mailing list. Why would running users to a gauntlet to be able to talk someone be considered effective or desirable for an organization promoting openness? It may reduce email volumes but wouldn't hide the true issues? > Yet, there seems to be a lot emotions floating around in this list. > > With a high a volume mailing list such as this, there is an expectation > that folks follow [1] and a distinct lack of patience for folks that > continue to ignore that excellent advice after they have been pointed > towards it. > è I understand the nature of volunteer work. I appreciate the hard work and dedication of all. The word “Excellent” does throw me for a loop though as I can not find objective measurements that would back this up. For example, are we basing excellence on resolution rate? On time to resolution, on professionalism of interaction? Number of steps? What baselines have been established against similar organizations (e.g. Jboss, etc.) and support groups; how has this group done better or worse? I think it would be a great project for ASF to establish goals and measure them in contrast to others in this area, especially given the volunteer nature. In my opinion, it is hallmark of maturity to be able to this type of assessment. Though there is not doubt that some users will “ignore” advice by very smart contributors, it does not mean they deserve less respect in the way that they are being treated or do not deserve to ask questions. No volume (I think this group averages about a dozen emails per day over a year) of request justifies discourteous treatment by anyone to anyone else. As you can tell I have a disagreement on this statement and issue alone. Even in a very positive light, I am reading little regard for users. Is this true? In my opinion, organizations that promote Free and Open Software, should be easily accessible, easy to communicate with, and make their mission to educate others (even the ones that “ignore advice”) about the principles, the products and services. It should not be a punishment to post on list, and you should not be bullied out of them. Maybe I am out of line or just an idealist, but that would be highly cool and I know it is possible and ASF could do it. As an example check out Jboss.org communities. > > > This in a way is good. It speaks of passion and dedication. I would > > ask that this passion is directed toward assistance and innovation. > > This probably will go farther than anything else. > > > > Feel free to email me directly if you want to chat. > > Off-list communication is discouraged. This is a single community that > communicates through the project mailing lists. This is particularly > important on the dev list. A key element of the "Apache Way" is: > "If it didn't happen on the list, it didn't happen". > > Mark > > è This is another point of disagreement. Posting on list is not automatically the solution to all issues. I understand that this list is being used as “system of record”. In this particular case, I perceived that a user had an issue with me personally rather than the list. The common guideline for conflict resolution dictates that a resolution should be found between the two parties in conflict, so I volunteered to reach out. Conflict resolution in groups is less effective. But since you asked I am posting back here. Thanks again, Bilal
