You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pulsar.apache.org by Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com> on 2021/08/18 19:11:05 UTC
Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Hi all,
Meetups are an important part of community building and knowledge sharing
for open source projects like Apache Pulsar. At the same time, the work of
recruiting speakers and organizing sponsors [1] is both time consuming and
not core to project governance.
I propose that the PMC designate a small community communications
subcommittee (with representatives from multiple vendors as well as
unaffiliated participants) to organize monthly community meetups. This
makeup will help guarantee vendor neutrality moving forward.
In the meantime, my colleague Aaron Williams has created an umbrella group
[2] at Meetup to facilitate coordination there. We are ready to turn this
over to the Apache Pulsar PMC.
[1] we can expect that sponsors to pay for food and drink will be relevant
again, hopefully soon!
[2] https://www.meetup.com/pro/apache-pulsar/
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
I don't think we should create any sub-committees to bypass the PMC.
The sub-committee topic or proposal should be properly discussed and
approved by the PMC.
In regards to meetups, I don't think we should put every Pulsar meetup
under one umbrella group even this group is managed by PMC. Pulsar
meetup organization should be done in a decentralized way. Everyone
should have the right to start or organize a Pulsar meetup without
going through a "manager" of an umbrella group and ask for approval or
being listed. The responsibility of the PMC is to ensure the usage of
the Pulsar trademark in those meetups is good.
1) If you are the Pulsar meetup organizers, you can use the Pulsar
Slack channel and mailing lists to recruit speakers. I don't see how
having an umbrella group will facilitate the coordination.
2) If the umbrella group is to help discoverability, you can use
hashtags to do so.
Lastly, since there was a concern about the usage of the "Apache
Pulsar" trademark for this umbrella group, my recommendation here is
to solve the concern with the PMC.
- Sijie
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 1:12 PM Aaron Williams <aa...@wi5s.com> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> On the Meet-ups, we already have ones that have just started up in
> Northern California, Southern California, and the Netherlands (run by 3
> different people) and I know of at least one more.
> Are there others? The only good thing about this Covid world is that the
> events that are scheduled are all virtual, so everyone can attend. One of
> the great things about these local meetup groups is that you can do things
> in a language other than English. Also, we have started using the #meetup
> channel on the slack channel (
> https://apache-pulsar.slack.com/archives/CJZ6M2GBZ) to help coordinate
> these. If you are interested in listing yours under the wider umbrella
> part or just want some more information, let me know.
>
> But this is where it would be nice to have a Marketing /Communication
> committee. We had them for the projects at my last position when I was at
> a different foundation (I won't mention its name and yes I know that this
> is ASF and I really like and believe in the "The Apache Way" of "Community
> over Code") . What really makes them very beneficial is that it is a great
> way for the wider community to come together and plan events, promote new
> releases, coordinate, etc. and all of this grows the community.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 12:11 PM Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Meetups are an important part of community building and knowledge sharing
> > for open source projects like Apache Pulsar. At the same time, the work of
> > recruiting speakers and organizing sponsors [1] is both time consuming and
> > not core to project governance.
> >
> > I propose that the PMC designate a small community communications
> > subcommittee (with representatives from multiple vendors as well as
> > unaffiliated participants) to organize monthly community meetups. This
> > makeup will help guarantee vendor neutrality moving forward.
> >
> > In the meantime, my colleague Aaron Williams has created an umbrella group
> > [2] at Meetup to facilitate coordination there. We are ready to turn this
> > over to the Apache Pulsar PMC.
> >
> > [1] we can expect that sponsors to pay for food and drink will be relevant
> > again, hopefully soon!
> > [2] https://www.meetup.com/pro/apache-pulsar/
> >
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Aaron Williams <aa...@wi5s.com>.
Hello all,
On the Meet-ups, we already have ones that have just started up in
Northern California, Southern California, and the Netherlands (run by 3
different people) and I know of at least one more.
Are there others? The only good thing about this Covid world is that the
events that are scheduled are all virtual, so everyone can attend. One of
the great things about these local meetup groups is that you can do things
in a language other than English. Also, we have started using the #meetup
channel on the slack channel (
https://apache-pulsar.slack.com/archives/CJZ6M2GBZ) to help coordinate
these. If you are interested in listing yours under the wider umbrella
part or just want some more information, let me know.
But this is where it would be nice to have a Marketing /Communication
committee. We had them for the projects at my last position when I was at
a different foundation (I won't mention its name and yes I know that this
is ASF and I really like and believe in the "The Apache Way" of "Community
over Code") . What really makes them very beneficial is that it is a great
way for the wider community to come together and plan events, promote new
releases, coordinate, etc. and all of this grows the community.
Thanks,
Aaron
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 12:11 PM Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Meetups are an important part of community building and knowledge sharing
> for open source projects like Apache Pulsar. At the same time, the work of
> recruiting speakers and organizing sponsors [1] is both time consuming and
> not core to project governance.
>
> I propose that the PMC designate a small community communications
> subcommittee (with representatives from multiple vendors as well as
> unaffiliated participants) to organize monthly community meetups. This
> makeup will help guarantee vendor neutrality moving forward.
>
> In the meantime, my colleague Aaron Williams has created an umbrella group
> [2] at Meetup to facilitate coordination there. We are ready to turn this
> over to the Apache Pulsar PMC.
>
> [1] we can expect that sponsors to pay for food and drink will be relevant
> again, hopefully soon!
> [2] https://www.meetup.com/pro/apache-pulsar/
>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
For anyone interested in this topic, here is the clarification from the
trademarks team about "Apache Pulsar Community".
---
The home of the Apache Pulsar Community is the ASF. The ASF, including
the ALv2, the registration of trademarks and the ASF's policies around
the use of marks, has been put in place to protect that community. The
ASF ensures, amongst other things, that the community is a vendor
neutral space where anyone who wishes to can collaborate on the
development of Apache Pulsar on equal terms with all other contributors.
The guardians of the Apache Pulsar community are the Apache Pulsar PMC.
As such, the claim to represent the "Apache Pulsar Community" is only
one that can be made by the PMC.
Details:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rba409e3b12067a2e69855ca57ced3fafe20bbeadedeb0441fe7d40c7%40%3Ctrademarks.apache.org%3E
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 6:39 PM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Partick,
>
> I am not a legal expert to answer the trademark question. I will consult
> the trademarks team for this.
>
> However, it is the PMC's responsibility to oversee the usage of "Apache
> Pulsar" that follows the ASF policy.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 5:23 PM Patrick McFadin <pm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Apache Pulsar Community" is not the PMC and that is 100% not the "Apache
>> Way™" If it said "Apache Pulsar Project" then I think that would be a
>> mischaracterization. I've helped run over 500 Apache-related meetups over
>> the past 10 years and myself and other organizers have always been careful
>> to use the word "community" as the people and not the project.
>>
>> This makes the PMC look like some sort of powerful ruling body, which it
>> isn't. The PMC can't tell people that they aren't a part of the community.
>> How would you add this to your board report? There is nothing here that
>> appears as a trademark violation or implication of ownership.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:57 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:26 PM Aaron Williams <aa...@wi5s.com> wrote:
>> > > Meetups and the Umbrella Group-
>> > > Having an Umbrella Group also prevents or at least makes it tougher
>> for
>> > the
>> > > “wild west” of meetup organizations to happen. For Apache Hadoop,
>> both
>> > > Cloudera and Hortonworks sponsored competing meetups early on, which
>> led
>> > to
>> > > tons of problems for that community around vendor neutrality. We can
>> > avoid
>> > > this can of worms for Apache Pulsar by providing oversight and
>> guidance
>> > > from the beginning.
>> > >
>> > > Thus, given the above and that it is better for the organizers, better
>> > for
>> > > the PMC’s responsibility to oversee vendor neutrality, and better for
>> > users
>> > > and potential users to manage meetups with a little more structure, I
>> > would
>> > > recommend that the PMC go forward with giving its blessing to the
>> > Umbrella
>> > > model.
>> >
>> > Aaron,
>> >
>> > Several PMC members have already asked you to rename the meetup groups
>> > you have created, because using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the
>> > organizer represents a big mischaracterization that wants to give the
>> > impression that the Pulsar PMC is behind these meetups.
>> >
>> > I believe any other discussion around meetups cannot prescind from that
>> > fact.
>> >
>> > Matteo
>> >
>> > --
>> > Matteo Merli
>> > <mm...@apache.org>
>> >
>>
>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Aaron Williams <aa...@datastax.com>.
Since it seems to be such a distraction, I changed the name of the parent
group to Apache Pulsar Friends.
Thanks,
Aaron
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 6:39 PM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Partick,
>
> I am not a legal expert to answer the trademark question. I will consult
> the trademarks team for this.
>
> However, it is the PMC's responsibility to oversee the usage of "Apache
> Pulsar" that follows the ASF policy.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 5:23 PM Patrick McFadin <pm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Apache Pulsar Community" is not the PMC and that is 100% not the "Apache
>> Way™" If it said "Apache Pulsar Project" then I think that would be a
>> mischaracterization. I've helped run over 500 Apache-related meetups over
>> the past 10 years and myself and other organizers have always been careful
>> to use the word "community" as the people and not the project.
>>
>> This makes the PMC look like some sort of powerful ruling body, which it
>> isn't. The PMC can't tell people that they aren't a part of the community.
>> How would you add this to your board report? There is nothing here that
>> appears as a trademark violation or implication of ownership.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:57 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:26 PM Aaron Williams <aa...@wi5s.com> wrote:
>> > > Meetups and the Umbrella Group-
>> > > Having an Umbrella Group also prevents or at least makes it tougher
>> for
>> > the
>> > > “wild west” of meetup organizations to happen. For Apache Hadoop,
>> both
>> > > Cloudera and Hortonworks sponsored competing meetups early on, which
>> led
>> > to
>> > > tons of problems for that community around vendor neutrality. We can
>> > avoid
>> > > this can of worms for Apache Pulsar by providing oversight and
>> guidance
>> > > from the beginning.
>> > >
>> > > Thus, given the above and that it is better for the organizers, better
>> > for
>> > > the PMC’s responsibility to oversee vendor neutrality, and better for
>> > users
>> > > and potential users to manage meetups with a little more structure, I
>> > would
>> > > recommend that the PMC go forward with giving its blessing to the
>> > Umbrella
>> > > model.
>> >
>> > Aaron,
>> >
>> > Several PMC members have already asked you to rename the meetup groups
>> > you have created, because using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the
>> > organizer represents a big mischaracterization that wants to give the
>> > impression that the Pulsar PMC is behind these meetups.
>> >
>> > I believe any other discussion around meetups cannot prescind from that
>> > fact.
>> >
>> > Matteo
>> >
>> > --
>> > Matteo Merli
>> > <mm...@apache.org>
>> >
>>
>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
Partick,
I am not a legal expert to answer the trademark question. I will consult
the trademarks team for this.
However, it is the PMC's responsibility to oversee the usage of "Apache
Pulsar" that follows the ASF policy.
- Sijie
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 5:23 PM Patrick McFadin <pm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Apache Pulsar Community" is not the PMC and that is 100% not the "Apache
> Way™" If it said "Apache Pulsar Project" then I think that would be a
> mischaracterization. I've helped run over 500 Apache-related meetups over
> the past 10 years and myself and other organizers have always been careful
> to use the word "community" as the people and not the project.
>
> This makes the PMC look like some sort of powerful ruling body, which it
> isn't. The PMC can't tell people that they aren't a part of the community.
> How would you add this to your board report? There is nothing here that
> appears as a trademark violation or implication of ownership.
>
> Patrick
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:57 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:26 PM Aaron Williams <aa...@wi5s.com> wrote:
> > > Meetups and the Umbrella Group-
> > > Having an Umbrella Group also prevents or at least makes it tougher for
> > the
> > > “wild west” of meetup organizations to happen. For Apache Hadoop, both
> > > Cloudera and Hortonworks sponsored competing meetups early on, which
> led
> > to
> > > tons of problems for that community around vendor neutrality. We can
> > avoid
> > > this can of worms for Apache Pulsar by providing oversight and guidance
> > > from the beginning.
> > >
> > > Thus, given the above and that it is better for the organizers, better
> > for
> > > the PMC’s responsibility to oversee vendor neutrality, and better for
> > users
> > > and potential users to manage meetups with a little more structure, I
> > would
> > > recommend that the PMC go forward with giving its blessing to the
> > Umbrella
> > > model.
> >
> > Aaron,
> >
> > Several PMC members have already asked you to rename the meetup groups
> > you have created, because using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the
> > organizer represents a big mischaracterization that wants to give the
> > impression that the Pulsar PMC is behind these meetups.
> >
> > I believe any other discussion around meetups cannot prescind from that
> > fact.
> >
> > Matteo
> >
> > --
> > Matteo Merli
> > <mm...@apache.org>
> >
>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Patrick McFadin <pm...@gmail.com>.
"Apache Pulsar Community" is not the PMC and that is 100% not the "Apache
Way™" If it said "Apache Pulsar Project" then I think that would be a
mischaracterization. I've helped run over 500 Apache-related meetups over
the past 10 years and myself and other organizers have always been careful
to use the word "community" as the people and not the project.
This makes the PMC look like some sort of powerful ruling body, which it
isn't. The PMC can't tell people that they aren't a part of the community.
How would you add this to your board report? There is nothing here that
appears as a trademark violation or implication of ownership.
Patrick
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:57 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:26 PM Aaron Williams <aa...@wi5s.com> wrote:
> > Meetups and the Umbrella Group-
> > Having an Umbrella Group also prevents or at least makes it tougher for
> the
> > “wild west” of meetup organizations to happen. For Apache Hadoop, both
> > Cloudera and Hortonworks sponsored competing meetups early on, which led
> to
> > tons of problems for that community around vendor neutrality. We can
> avoid
> > this can of worms for Apache Pulsar by providing oversight and guidance
> > from the beginning.
> >
> > Thus, given the above and that it is better for the organizers, better
> for
> > the PMC’s responsibility to oversee vendor neutrality, and better for
> users
> > and potential users to manage meetups with a little more structure, I
> would
> > recommend that the PMC go forward with giving its blessing to the
> Umbrella
> > model.
>
> Aaron,
>
> Several PMC members have already asked you to rename the meetup groups
> you have created, because using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the
> organizer represents a big mischaracterization that wants to give the
> impression that the Pulsar PMC is behind these meetups.
>
> I believe any other discussion around meetups cannot prescind from that
> fact.
>
> Matteo
>
> --
> Matteo Merli
> <mm...@apache.org>
>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:26 PM Aaron Williams <aa...@wi5s.com> wrote:
> Meetups and the Umbrella Group-
> Having an Umbrella Group also prevents or at least makes it tougher for the
> “wild west” of meetup organizations to happen. For Apache Hadoop, both
> Cloudera and Hortonworks sponsored competing meetups early on, which led to
> tons of problems for that community around vendor neutrality. We can avoid
> this can of worms for Apache Pulsar by providing oversight and guidance
> from the beginning.
>
> Thus, given the above and that it is better for the organizers, better for
> the PMC’s responsibility to oversee vendor neutrality, and better for users
> and potential users to manage meetups with a little more structure, I would
> recommend that the PMC go forward with giving its blessing to the Umbrella
> model.
Aaron,
Several PMC members have already asked you to rename the meetup groups
you have created, because using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the
organizer represents a big mischaracterization that wants to give the
impression that the Pulsar PMC is behind these meetups.
I believe any other discussion around meetups cannot prescind from that fact.
Matteo
--
Matteo Merli
<mm...@apache.org>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
*regarding "sub-committee"*
Let's be super clear here. This is not about the creation of a
sub-committee (or working group, whatever name to use here), which the PMC
may or may not do as it chooses. I can't speak for the entire PMC. The
major issue is if there is such a sub-committee, who is on it. *What is
being requested here is a method for bypassing the fundamental Apache
meritocracy. That's the problem we are talking about here.* 4 PMC members
from 3 different affiliations have expressed this concern.
*regarding "umbrella group"*
There are always pros and cons to any approach is taken here. If your
employer wants to create an umbrella group, you have the free right to do
so. The PMC doesn't prevent you to do so. In fact, creating meetups are
encouraged always!
The problem that needs to be addressed here is the creation of the umbrella
group is done without PMC being involved. The solution that was suggested
by one of the PMC members is renaming it or hand it over to the PMC.
"renaming it" was preferred. It is not because the PMC doesn't want to take
the responsibility to own this umbrella group. As one of the PMC members, I
am happy to take the responsibility for this umbrella group personally.
However, there were concerns expressed on "PMC taking over" and "renaming"
was suggested as a better resolution there. I don't have the right to copy
other people's comments from the PMC thread to here. Hence I suggest your
team addressing the concerns expressed in the PMC thread.
- Sijie
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:26 PM Aaron Williams <aa...@wi5s.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I think that there is some confusion on a couple of terms.
>
> Vendor Neutrality- What we said caused a lot of confusion, what we meant
> to say in the Marketing/Communications working group proposal is that we
> wanted a diversity of members, rather than all volunteers to be from the
> same company or dominated by one company. Community members want to
> volunteer to promote the project and not a company or group of companies.
> If they feel that their hard work is used to promote the Community then
> they will be filled with a sense of pride and will want to do more. If
> they feel that it is going to one company then they will get a bad taste in
> their mouth.
>
> Sub-committee- It seems that the name sub-committee is causing some
> issues. Why don’t we call it a “working group”? We are clear that this
> working group (like all working groups) would serve at the pleasure of the
> entity that created it, i.e., the Apache Pulsar PMC.
>
> Hopefully with those clarifications/corrections we can focus a little more
> on the two issues that have been combined in this email chain.
>
> Marketing/Communications Working Group-
>
> The PMC has the power to create working group(s). The goal of the working
> group (as has been proposed) would be to promote the community, offer
> suggestions and recommendations to the PMC on how best to communicate the
> workings of Apache Pulsar community to the broader streaming and Open
> Source communities.
>
> An Analogy: If the community proposed and the PMC approved a security
> working group, no one would think that the PMC was “essentially carving out
> the prerogatives of the PMC and the oversight that it’s responsible to
> exercise.” But actually the opposite would be true. It would show that
> security is so important that we created a group that focuses on it.
>
> So like all working groups, the Marketing/Communications Working Group
> would serve at the pleasure of the PMC, and the PMC can set the rules of
> the working group, change them, and disband it at any time. The PMC could
> choose its members or just ask for volunteers.
>
> So given that these seem to be the hurdles to the formation of the Working
> Group, I would like to ask the question, should the members be chosen or
> should it just be who would like to volunteer to help out? Either way the
> meetings or email list would be open to the public.
>
> Meetups and the Umbrella Group-
>
> We are all in agreement that meetups are good. The issue seems to be if
> the PMC should support them directly, allow the community to run them
> without oversight or interference, or stop them entirely? (There will be
> other things to discuss, but this is the Step 1 question)
>
> There are many reasons to create an Umbrella group. The easiest reason to
> understand is that it makes finding another group’s events much easier.
> And since just about everything is virtual right now, a community member
> would be able to see and attend other groups from around the world.
> Similarly, as the organizer of a local group, it makes it easier to avoid
> scheduling conflicts.
>
> If a community member wants to create their own group, this will give them
> lots of meetup groups to model and get ideas from. Finally, as the local
> meetups grow, “the dots on the map” becomes very impressive. This tells
> future community members that this is a vibrant community that will have a
> lasting impact on programming and you want to be part of this community.
> (BTW go to Hyperledger’s page to see an impressive number of dots on the
> map)[1]
>
> Having an Umbrella Group also prevents or at least makes it tougher for the
> “wild west” of meetup organizations to happen. For Apache Hadoop, both
> Cloudera and Hortonworks sponsored competing meetups early on, which led to
> tons of problems for that community around vendor neutrality. We can avoid
> this can of worms for Apache Pulsar by providing oversight and guidance
> from the beginning.
>
> Thus, given the above and that it is better for the organizers, better for
> the PMC’s responsibility to oversee vendor neutrality, and better for users
> and potential users to manage meetups with a little more structure, I would
> recommend that the PMC go forward with giving its blessing to the Umbrella
> model.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> [1] https://www.meetup.com/pro/hyperledger
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 8:03 AM Sree Vaddi <sree_at_chess@yahoo.com
> .invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > This meetup was the oldest, started by founders of the Apache Pulsar.It
> > has 338 members. And recent event in May 2021.
> >
> > https://www.meetup.com/SF-Bay-Area-Apache-Pulsar-Meetup/
> >
> >
> > Thank you./Sree
> >
> > On Thursday, August 19, 2021, 05:35:43 AM PDT, Jonathan Ellis <
> > jbellis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Moving back to dev.
> >
> > Since it seems like there's some confusion on this point, it's perfectly
> > normal for PMC discussions around new proposals with decision-making
> > authority by the PMC to take place on the public dev list. The private
> > list is only necessary when confidentiality is required, and the dev list
> > allows non-PMC voices to be heard more readily as well as promoting
> > transparency on how consensus was reached.
> >
> > I am not aware of any ASF policy that would prohibit subcommittees like
> > this. (I'm not aware of precedent in starting one either, but as Aaron
> > pointed out, this *is* common at similar foundations with similar
> > governance goals to the ASF, and there's no reason we can't
> cross-pollinate
> > good ideas.)
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:47 AM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Moving dev@ to BCC. I believe the following two major issues should be
> > > discussed and addressed in the original email thread with PMC.
> > >
> > > 1) Creating sub-committees composed of vendor representatives isn't
> > > violating the ASF policy. This PMC has expressed concerns when the
> > original
> > > proposal was raised. Those concerns should be addressed first.
> > >
> > > 2) Mis-usage of "Apache Pulsar Community" without any PMC members
> > involved.
> > >
> > > Chris,
> > >
> > > I think everyone in the PMC appreciates the meetup organizers for
> > > organizing meetups and encourages people to create Pulsar meetups
> without
> > > any constraints. Coordinating and organizing meetups doesn't require a
> > > committee to do so.
> > >
> > > - Sijie
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:09 PM Chris Latimer <ch...@chrislatimer.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Matteo,
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry if my last message suggested that volunteering to take on
> an
> > > effort gives anyone the right to start acting on behalf of the PMC.
> That
> > > certainly wasn't my intent. The original message in this thread
> proposed
> > a
> > > way to help people who want to organize meetups do so more
> successfully.
> > I
> > > only meant to register my appreciation for the community members who
> are
> > > willing to volunteer their time and energy to help facilitate awareness
> > and
> > > excitement about the technology and express how personally
> disappointed I
> > > would be to see the PMC take a position that prohibits this kind of
> > > community development activity.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for taking my perspective into consideration.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > >
> > > > Chris Latimer
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:08 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I think it's entirely understandable for the PMC to say "we don't
> > > want to
> > > >> > be responsible for this", but it would be highly unfortunate for
> the
> > > PMC to
> > > >> > say "we don't want to be responsible for this AND no one from the
> > > community
> > > >> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
> > > >> > volunteering to take on the effort.
> > > >>
> > > >> That was *absolutely not* what was answered.
> > > >>
> > > >> I re-quote my answer from before:
> > > >>
> > > >> ======
> > > >> * Everyone is allowed (and encouraged!) to create and promote
> events
> > > >> around Apache Pulsar (following the ASF guidelines on trademarks)
> > > >> * Using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the organizer is a
> > > >> mischaracterization, since that effort is not coming from the
> > > Pulsar
> > > >> PMC
> > > >> * These events should be renamed to something that makes it
> > > >> absolutely clear this is not from Pulsar PMC
> > > >> ======
> > > >>
> > > >> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
> > > >> > volunteering to take on the effort.
> > > >>
> > > >> Volunteering to take on the effort doesn't give the right to start
> > > >> acting on behalf of the PMC.
> > >
> >
>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Aaron Williams <aa...@datastax.com>.
Thank you to everyone who has responded and has given us feedback and
advice!
Joe, thank you for your response, I agree with about 98% of what you
posted. However, this email chain has gotten too long and confusing to
follow. Thus, I’m going to “close” this email chain and start with a new,
clean proposal, treating this email chain as background material.
Since the proposal does not deal with any of the exceptions ASF cites, I
will post it to the dev@ email list, so all community members can view and
voice their opinions.[1]
Once again, thank you for your honest feedback. I truly appreciate you
taking the time to respond in such a respectful and comprehensive way.
And thank you to all community members who took the time to read and/or
respond to the proposal,
Aaron Williams
[1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html#communication
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 12:27 PM Joe F <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The conversation here seems incoherent because of a few factors. One is
> by the use of "community'' and "project" interchangeably, as required to
> support this proposal - community in one context to support holding
> meetups/conferences and at the same time asking the PMC to manage this
> effort under the project. Adding to that confusion is that part of this
> conversation is happening on the private list.
>
> There are things assumed in this proposal that are implied, and not
> explicit. The issue is not about the PMC and the creation of a
> sub-committee/working group/Umbrella group, ( however you name it ) but
> with what it implies.
>
> Consider* "(with representatives from multiple vendors as well as
> unaffiliated participants)". * That seems like corporations/vendors
> getting rights/endorsements/blessings, via some governance/PMC/ blessed
> roles, bypassing Apache meritocracy for individuals- in this case, by
> means of "sub-committees/working/umbrella groups ".
>
> - It is very clear that ASF does not allow corporations to participate
> directly in Apache project management.
> - It is also clear that there is nothing limiting any vendor - other than
> compliance to ASF policy - to market, sell software, organize conferences,
> meetups etc
>
> So what is new here in this proposal ? Other than "vendor representation"
> as a means to bypass the meritocratic constraint on the project, and
> introduce vendor rights and privileges into the project?
>
> *>> "what we meant to say in the Marketing/Communications working group
> proposal is that we wanted a diversity of members, rather than all
> volunteers to be from the same company or dominated by one company."*
>
> The vast majority of Pulsar PMC and committers are not affiliated with any
> vendor, and are just Pulsar users.
> Vendor representation, by itself, is not a basis for anything in ASF
> projects. Vendors are not directly represented in the project . It's
> individuals. This seems like asserting vendor neutrality trumps merit, and
> merit should be sacrificed for vendor neutrality. I see that as hard to
> buy. Marketing smells of commercial activity, dragging the PMC into vendor
> business activities
>
>
> *>>Having an Umbrella Group also prevents or at least makes it tougher for
> the “wild west” of meetup organizations to happen. For Apache Hadoop, both
> Cloudera and Hortonworks sponsored competing meetups early on, which led to
> tons of problems for that community around vendor neutrality.*
> This seems a roundabout way of demanding that PMC should
> mediate/endorse/coordinate among vendors, under the perceived cloud of
> "else bad things will happen".
> [As an aside, neither Cloudera nor Hortonworks had any rights by virtue
> of just being a vendor, There were merited individuals in both camps]. .
>
>
> *>>but it would be highly unfortunate for the PMC to say "we don't want to
> be responsible for this AND no one from the community is allowed to do this
> either",*
> Enforcing compliance to ASF policy cannot be equated to prohibition of
> anyone. There is nothing prohibiting vendors/users/groups to host their
> own groups/meetups/events . ASF already has an event/branding policy that
> lays out how this can be done, and it's neutral and allows anyone to host
> events.
>
> Vendors/Users are also free to associate in whatever manner they choose,
> and host events, subject to the same ASF policy. They don't need the PMC
> to manage this under the Project flag to do so. Anyone can follow ASF
> policy and have as many events as needed. The more of these events, the
> better it is.
>
> This proposal implicitly demands that being a vendor, by itself, should
> confer some privileges/rights or blessings by the project PMC (call it
> membership in working group/subcommittee/Umbrella group .. ) and that the
> PMC should get into the business of running/marketing vendor activities.
> That seems to stand on its head the Apache policy of vendor neutrality.
> It's essentially insisting that the PMC actively market all vendors,
> instead of none.
>
> I think there is no reason for the PMC/project to take on the "Project
> should manage vendors/vendor activities" role, or provide rights to
> vendors. It is not the PMC's role to manage vendors, mediate between
> vendors or to promote/market vendor interests.
>
> There is a well established, time-tested ASF policy on events and
> branding, and there is no need to invent a new one. This proposal is a
> solution in search of a problem.
>
> -j
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:26 PM Aaron Williams <aa...@wi5s.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I think that there is some confusion on a couple of terms.
>>
>> Vendor Neutrality- What we said caused a lot of confusion, what we meant
>> to say in the Marketing/Communications working group proposal is that we
>> wanted a diversity of members, rather than all volunteers to be from the
>> same company or dominated by one company. Community members want to
>> volunteer to promote the project and not a company or group of companies.
>> If they feel that their hard work is used to promote the Community then
>> they will be filled with a sense of pride and will want to do more. If
>> they feel that it is going to one company then they will get a bad taste
>> in
>> their mouth.
>>
>> Sub-committee- It seems that the name sub-committee is causing some
>> issues. Why don’t we call it a “working group”? We are clear that this
>> working group (like all working groups) would serve at the pleasure of the
>> entity that created it, i.e., the Apache Pulsar PMC.
>>
>> Hopefully with those clarifications/corrections we can focus a little more
>> on the two issues that have been combined in this email chain.
>>
>> Marketing/Communications Working Group-
>>
>> The PMC has the power to create working group(s). The goal of the working
>> group (as has been proposed) would be to promote the community, offer
>> suggestions and recommendations to the PMC on how best to communicate the
>> workings of Apache Pulsar community to the broader streaming and Open
>> Source communities.
>>
>> An Analogy: If the community proposed and the PMC approved a security
>> working group, no one would think that the PMC was “essentially carving
>> out
>> the prerogatives of the PMC and the oversight that it’s responsible to
>> exercise.” But actually the opposite would be true. It would show that
>> security is so important that we created a group that focuses on it.
>>
>> So like all working groups, the Marketing/Communications Working Group
>> would serve at the pleasure of the PMC, and the PMC can set the rules of
>> the working group, change them, and disband it at any time. The PMC could
>> choose its members or just ask for volunteers.
>>
>> So given that these seem to be the hurdles to the formation of the Working
>> Group, I would like to ask the question, should the members be chosen or
>> should it just be who would like to volunteer to help out? Either way the
>> meetings or email list would be open to the public.
>>
>> Meetups and the Umbrella Group-
>>
>> We are all in agreement that meetups are good. The issue seems to be if
>> the PMC should support them directly, allow the community to run them
>> without oversight or interference, or stop them entirely? (There will be
>> other things to discuss, but this is the Step 1 question)
>>
>> There are many reasons to create an Umbrella group. The easiest reason to
>> understand is that it makes finding another group’s events much easier.
>> And since just about everything is virtual right now, a community member
>> would be able to see and attend other groups from around the world.
>> Similarly, as the organizer of a local group, it makes it easier to avoid
>> scheduling conflicts.
>>
>> If a community member wants to create their own group, this will give them
>> lots of meetup groups to model and get ideas from. Finally, as the local
>> meetups grow, “the dots on the map” becomes very impressive. This tells
>> future community members that this is a vibrant community that will have a
>> lasting impact on programming and you want to be part of this community.
>> (BTW go to Hyperledger’s page to see an impressive number of dots on the
>> map)[1]
>>
>> Having an Umbrella Group also prevents or at least makes it tougher for
>> the
>> “wild west” of meetup organizations to happen. For Apache Hadoop, both
>> Cloudera and Hortonworks sponsored competing meetups early on, which led
>> to
>> tons of problems for that community around vendor neutrality. We can
>> avoid
>> this can of worms for Apache Pulsar by providing oversight and guidance
>> from the beginning.
>>
>> Thus, given the above and that it is better for the organizers, better for
>> the PMC’s responsibility to oversee vendor neutrality, and better for
>> users
>> and potential users to manage meetups with a little more structure, I
>> would
>> recommend that the PMC go forward with giving its blessing to the Umbrella
>> model.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Aaron
>>
>> [1] https://www.meetup.com/pro/hyperledger
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.meetup.com_pro_hyperledger&d=DwMFaQ&c=adz96Xi0w1RHqtPMowiL2g&r=xfJCHpjPTxraruLs_Uk3E942RLPiuaa4M5tzdGOlGPw&m=2Apm-Dg7NvfjMr8oPyx-YNXcKu4CTlqL5BS_XRqBLoM&s=pa8I47NEuXWHaYithDQZp1HvoKzYI-7tYcTCt6MW12c&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 8:03 AM Sree Vaddi <sree_at_chess@yahoo.com
>> .invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > This meetup was the oldest, started by founders of the Apache Pulsar.It
>> > has 338 members. And recent event in May 2021.
>> >
>> > https://www.meetup.com/SF-Bay-Area-Apache-Pulsar-Meetup/
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.meetup.com_SF-2DBay-2DArea-2DApache-2DPulsar-2DMeetup_&d=DwMFaQ&c=adz96Xi0w1RHqtPMowiL2g&r=xfJCHpjPTxraruLs_Uk3E942RLPiuaa4M5tzdGOlGPw&m=2Apm-Dg7NvfjMr8oPyx-YNXcKu4CTlqL5BS_XRqBLoM&s=ipEC8yaYRrw3_JmjBErZt-4wmX4v4rJLdG1NNnDcLRY&e=>
>> >
>> >
>> > Thank you./Sree
>> >
>> > On Thursday, August 19, 2021, 05:35:43 AM PDT, Jonathan Ellis <
>> > jbellis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Moving back to dev.
>> >
>> > Since it seems like there's some confusion on this point, it's perfectly
>> > normal for PMC discussions around new proposals with decision-making
>> > authority by the PMC to take place on the public dev list. The private
>> > list is only necessary when confidentiality is required, and the dev
>> list
>> > allows non-PMC voices to be heard more readily as well as promoting
>> > transparency on how consensus was reached.
>> >
>> > I am not aware of any ASF policy that would prohibit subcommittees like
>> > this. (I'm not aware of precedent in starting one either, but as Aaron
>> > pointed out, this *is* common at similar foundations with similar
>> > governance goals to the ASF, and there's no reason we can't
>> cross-pollinate
>> > good ideas.)
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:47 AM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Moving dev@ to BCC. I believe the following two major issues should
>> be
>> > > discussed and addressed in the original email thread with PMC.
>> > >
>> > > 1) Creating sub-committees composed of vendor representatives isn't
>> > > violating the ASF policy. This PMC has expressed concerns when the
>> > original
>> > > proposal was raised. Those concerns should be addressed first.
>> > >
>> > > 2) Mis-usage of "Apache Pulsar Community" without any PMC members
>> > involved.
>> > >
>> > > Chris,
>> > >
>> > > I think everyone in the PMC appreciates the meetup organizers for
>> > > organizing meetups and encourages people to create Pulsar meetups
>> without
>> > > any constraints. Coordinating and organizing meetups doesn't require a
>> > > committee to do so.
>> > >
>> > > - Sijie
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:09 PM Chris Latimer <chris@chrislatimer.com
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi Matteo,
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm sorry if my last message suggested that volunteering to take on
>> an
>> > > effort gives anyone the right to start acting on behalf of the PMC.
>> That
>> > > certainly wasn't my intent. The original message in this thread
>> proposed
>> > a
>> > > way to help people who want to organize meetups do so more
>> successfully.
>> > I
>> > > only meant to register my appreciation for the community members who
>> are
>> > > willing to volunteer their time and energy to help facilitate
>> awareness
>> > and
>> > > excitement about the technology and express how personally
>> disappointed I
>> > > would be to see the PMC take a position that prohibits this kind of
>> > > community development activity.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thank you for taking my perspective into consideration.
>> > > >
>> > > > Sincerely,
>> > > >
>> > > > Chris Latimer
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:08 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > I think it's entirely understandable for the PMC to say "we don't
>> > > want to
>> > > >> > be responsible for this", but it would be highly unfortunate for
>> the
>> > > PMC to
>> > > >> > say "we don't want to be responsible for this AND no one from the
>> > > community
>> > > >> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
>> > > >> > volunteering to take on the effort.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> That was *absolutely not* what was answered.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I re-quote my answer from before:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> ======
>> > > >> * Everyone is allowed (and encouraged!) to create and promote
>> events
>> > > >> around Apache Pulsar (following the ASF guidelines on
>> trademarks)
>> > > >> * Using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the organizer is a
>> > > >> mischaracterization, since that effort is not coming from the
>> > > Pulsar
>> > > >> PMC
>> > > >> * These events should be renamed to something that makes it
>> > > >> absolutely clear this is not from Pulsar PMC
>> > > >> ======
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
>> > > >> > volunteering to take on the effort.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Volunteering to take on the effort doesn't give the right to start
>> > > >> acting on behalf of the PMC.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Joe F <jo...@gmail.com>.
The conversation here seems incoherent because of a few factors. One is by
the use of "community'' and "project" interchangeably, as required to
support this proposal - community in one context to support holding
meetups/conferences and at the same time asking the PMC to manage this
effort under the project. Adding to that confusion is that part of this
conversation is happening on the private list.
There are things assumed in this proposal that are implied, and not
explicit. The issue is not about the PMC and the creation of a
sub-committee/working group/Umbrella group, ( however you name it ) but
with what it implies.
Consider* "(with representatives from multiple vendors as well as
unaffiliated participants)". * That seems like corporations/vendors
getting rights/endorsements/blessings, via some governance/PMC/ blessed
roles, bypassing Apache meritocracy for individuals- in this case, by
means of "sub-committees/working/umbrella groups ".
- It is very clear that ASF does not allow corporations to participate
directly in Apache project management.
- It is also clear that there is nothing limiting any vendor - other than
compliance to ASF policy - to market, sell software, organize conferences,
meetups etc
So what is new here in this proposal ? Other than "vendor representation"
as a means to bypass the meritocratic constraint on the project, and
introduce vendor rights and privileges into the project?
*>> "what we meant to say in the Marketing/Communications working group
proposal is that we wanted a diversity of members, rather than all
volunteers to be from the same company or dominated by one company."*
The vast majority of Pulsar PMC and committers are not affiliated with any
vendor, and are just Pulsar users.
Vendor representation, by itself, is not a basis for anything in ASF
projects. Vendors are not directly represented in the project . It's
individuals. This seems like asserting vendor neutrality trumps merit, and
merit should be sacrificed for vendor neutrality. I see that as hard to
buy. Marketing smells of commercial activity, dragging the PMC into vendor
business activities
*>>Having an Umbrella Group also prevents or at least makes it tougher for
the “wild west” of meetup organizations to happen. For Apache Hadoop, both
Cloudera and Hortonworks sponsored competing meetups early on, which led to
tons of problems for that community around vendor neutrality.*
This seems a roundabout way of demanding that PMC should
mediate/endorse/coordinate among vendors, under the perceived cloud of
"else bad things will happen".
[As an aside, neither Cloudera nor Hortonworks had any rights by virtue of
just being a vendor, There were merited individuals in both camps]. .
*>>but it would be highly unfortunate for the PMC to say "we don't want to
be responsible for this AND no one from the community is allowed to do this
either",*
Enforcing compliance to ASF policy cannot be equated to prohibition of
anyone. There is nothing prohibiting vendors/users/groups to host their
own groups/meetups/events . ASF already has an event/branding policy that
lays out how this can be done, and it's neutral and allows anyone to host
events.
Vendors/Users are also free to associate in whatever manner they choose,
and host events, subject to the same ASF policy. They don't need the PMC
to manage this under the Project flag to do so. Anyone can follow ASF
policy and have as many events as needed. The more of these events, the
better it is.
This proposal implicitly demands that being a vendor, by itself, should
confer some privileges/rights or blessings by the project PMC (call it
membership in working group/subcommittee/Umbrella group .. ) and that the
PMC should get into the business of running/marketing vendor activities.
That seems to stand on its head the Apache policy of vendor neutrality.
It's essentially insisting that the PMC actively market all vendors,
instead of none.
I think there is no reason for the PMC/project to take on the "Project
should manage vendors/vendor activities" role, or provide rights to
vendors. It is not the PMC's role to manage vendors, mediate between
vendors or to promote/market vendor interests.
There is a well established, time-tested ASF policy on events and
branding, and there is no need to invent a new one. This proposal is a
solution in search of a problem.
-j
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:26 PM Aaron Williams <aa...@wi5s.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I think that there is some confusion on a couple of terms.
>
> Vendor Neutrality- What we said caused a lot of confusion, what we meant
> to say in the Marketing/Communications working group proposal is that we
> wanted a diversity of members, rather than all volunteers to be from the
> same company or dominated by one company. Community members want to
> volunteer to promote the project and not a company or group of companies.
> If they feel that their hard work is used to promote the Community then
> they will be filled with a sense of pride and will want to do more. If
> they feel that it is going to one company then they will get a bad taste in
> their mouth.
>
> Sub-committee- It seems that the name sub-committee is causing some
> issues. Why don’t we call it a “working group”? We are clear that this
> working group (like all working groups) would serve at the pleasure of the
> entity that created it, i.e., the Apache Pulsar PMC.
>
> Hopefully with those clarifications/corrections we can focus a little more
> on the two issues that have been combined in this email chain.
>
> Marketing/Communications Working Group-
>
> The PMC has the power to create working group(s). The goal of the working
> group (as has been proposed) would be to promote the community, offer
> suggestions and recommendations to the PMC on how best to communicate the
> workings of Apache Pulsar community to the broader streaming and Open
> Source communities.
>
> An Analogy: If the community proposed and the PMC approved a security
> working group, no one would think that the PMC was “essentially carving out
> the prerogatives of the PMC and the oversight that it’s responsible to
> exercise.” But actually the opposite would be true. It would show that
> security is so important that we created a group that focuses on it.
>
> So like all working groups, the Marketing/Communications Working Group
> would serve at the pleasure of the PMC, and the PMC can set the rules of
> the working group, change them, and disband it at any time. The PMC could
> choose its members or just ask for volunteers.
>
> So given that these seem to be the hurdles to the formation of the Working
> Group, I would like to ask the question, should the members be chosen or
> should it just be who would like to volunteer to help out? Either way the
> meetings or email list would be open to the public.
>
> Meetups and the Umbrella Group-
>
> We are all in agreement that meetups are good. The issue seems to be if
> the PMC should support them directly, allow the community to run them
> without oversight or interference, or stop them entirely? (There will be
> other things to discuss, but this is the Step 1 question)
>
> There are many reasons to create an Umbrella group. The easiest reason to
> understand is that it makes finding another group’s events much easier.
> And since just about everything is virtual right now, a community member
> would be able to see and attend other groups from around the world.
> Similarly, as the organizer of a local group, it makes it easier to avoid
> scheduling conflicts.
>
> If a community member wants to create their own group, this will give them
> lots of meetup groups to model and get ideas from. Finally, as the local
> meetups grow, “the dots on the map” becomes very impressive. This tells
> future community members that this is a vibrant community that will have a
> lasting impact on programming and you want to be part of this community.
> (BTW go to Hyperledger’s page to see an impressive number of dots on the
> map)[1]
>
> Having an Umbrella Group also prevents or at least makes it tougher for the
> “wild west” of meetup organizations to happen. For Apache Hadoop, both
> Cloudera and Hortonworks sponsored competing meetups early on, which led to
> tons of problems for that community around vendor neutrality. We can avoid
> this can of worms for Apache Pulsar by providing oversight and guidance
> from the beginning.
>
> Thus, given the above and that it is better for the organizers, better for
> the PMC’s responsibility to oversee vendor neutrality, and better for users
> and potential users to manage meetups with a little more structure, I would
> recommend that the PMC go forward with giving its blessing to the Umbrella
> model.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> [1] https://www.meetup.com/pro/hyperledger
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 8:03 AM Sree Vaddi <sree_at_chess@yahoo.com
> .invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > This meetup was the oldest, started by founders of the Apache Pulsar.It
> > has 338 members. And recent event in May 2021.
> >
> > https://www.meetup.com/SF-Bay-Area-Apache-Pulsar-Meetup/
> >
> >
> > Thank you./Sree
> >
> > On Thursday, August 19, 2021, 05:35:43 AM PDT, Jonathan Ellis <
> > jbellis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Moving back to dev.
> >
> > Since it seems like there's some confusion on this point, it's perfectly
> > normal for PMC discussions around new proposals with decision-making
> > authority by the PMC to take place on the public dev list. The private
> > list is only necessary when confidentiality is required, and the dev list
> > allows non-PMC voices to be heard more readily as well as promoting
> > transparency on how consensus was reached.
> >
> > I am not aware of any ASF policy that would prohibit subcommittees like
> > this. (I'm not aware of precedent in starting one either, but as Aaron
> > pointed out, this *is* common at similar foundations with similar
> > governance goals to the ASF, and there's no reason we can't
> cross-pollinate
> > good ideas.)
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:47 AM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Moving dev@ to BCC. I believe the following two major issues should be
> > > discussed and addressed in the original email thread with PMC.
> > >
> > > 1) Creating sub-committees composed of vendor representatives isn't
> > > violating the ASF policy. This PMC has expressed concerns when the
> > original
> > > proposal was raised. Those concerns should be addressed first.
> > >
> > > 2) Mis-usage of "Apache Pulsar Community" without any PMC members
> > involved.
> > >
> > > Chris,
> > >
> > > I think everyone in the PMC appreciates the meetup organizers for
> > > organizing meetups and encourages people to create Pulsar meetups
> without
> > > any constraints. Coordinating and organizing meetups doesn't require a
> > > committee to do so.
> > >
> > > - Sijie
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:09 PM Chris Latimer <ch...@chrislatimer.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Matteo,
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry if my last message suggested that volunteering to take on
> an
> > > effort gives anyone the right to start acting on behalf of the PMC.
> That
> > > certainly wasn't my intent. The original message in this thread
> proposed
> > a
> > > way to help people who want to organize meetups do so more
> successfully.
> > I
> > > only meant to register my appreciation for the community members who
> are
> > > willing to volunteer their time and energy to help facilitate awareness
> > and
> > > excitement about the technology and express how personally
> disappointed I
> > > would be to see the PMC take a position that prohibits this kind of
> > > community development activity.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for taking my perspective into consideration.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > >
> > > > Chris Latimer
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:08 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I think it's entirely understandable for the PMC to say "we don't
> > > want to
> > > >> > be responsible for this", but it would be highly unfortunate for
> the
> > > PMC to
> > > >> > say "we don't want to be responsible for this AND no one from the
> > > community
> > > >> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
> > > >> > volunteering to take on the effort.
> > > >>
> > > >> That was *absolutely not* what was answered.
> > > >>
> > > >> I re-quote my answer from before:
> > > >>
> > > >> ======
> > > >> * Everyone is allowed (and encouraged!) to create and promote
> events
> > > >> around Apache Pulsar (following the ASF guidelines on trademarks)
> > > >> * Using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the organizer is a
> > > >> mischaracterization, since that effort is not coming from the
> > > Pulsar
> > > >> PMC
> > > >> * These events should be renamed to something that makes it
> > > >> absolutely clear this is not from Pulsar PMC
> > > >> ======
> > > >>
> > > >> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
> > > >> > volunteering to take on the effort.
> > > >>
> > > >> Volunteering to take on the effort doesn't give the right to start
> > > >> acting on behalf of the PMC.
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Aaron Williams <aa...@wi5s.com>.
Hello all,
I think that there is some confusion on a couple of terms.
Vendor Neutrality- What we said caused a lot of confusion, what we meant
to say in the Marketing/Communications working group proposal is that we
wanted a diversity of members, rather than all volunteers to be from the
same company or dominated by one company. Community members want to
volunteer to promote the project and not a company or group of companies.
If they feel that their hard work is used to promote the Community then
they will be filled with a sense of pride and will want to do more. If
they feel that it is going to one company then they will get a bad taste in
their mouth.
Sub-committee- It seems that the name sub-committee is causing some
issues. Why don’t we call it a “working group”? We are clear that this
working group (like all working groups) would serve at the pleasure of the
entity that created it, i.e., the Apache Pulsar PMC.
Hopefully with those clarifications/corrections we can focus a little more
on the two issues that have been combined in this email chain.
Marketing/Communications Working Group-
The PMC has the power to create working group(s). The goal of the working
group (as has been proposed) would be to promote the community, offer
suggestions and recommendations to the PMC on how best to communicate the
workings of Apache Pulsar community to the broader streaming and Open
Source communities.
An Analogy: If the community proposed and the PMC approved a security
working group, no one would think that the PMC was “essentially carving out
the prerogatives of the PMC and the oversight that it’s responsible to
exercise.” But actually the opposite would be true. It would show that
security is so important that we created a group that focuses on it.
So like all working groups, the Marketing/Communications Working Group
would serve at the pleasure of the PMC, and the PMC can set the rules of
the working group, change them, and disband it at any time. The PMC could
choose its members or just ask for volunteers.
So given that these seem to be the hurdles to the formation of the Working
Group, I would like to ask the question, should the members be chosen or
should it just be who would like to volunteer to help out? Either way the
meetings or email list would be open to the public.
Meetups and the Umbrella Group-
We are all in agreement that meetups are good. The issue seems to be if
the PMC should support them directly, allow the community to run them
without oversight or interference, or stop them entirely? (There will be
other things to discuss, but this is the Step 1 question)
There are many reasons to create an Umbrella group. The easiest reason to
understand is that it makes finding another group’s events much easier.
And since just about everything is virtual right now, a community member
would be able to see and attend other groups from around the world.
Similarly, as the organizer of a local group, it makes it easier to avoid
scheduling conflicts.
If a community member wants to create their own group, this will give them
lots of meetup groups to model and get ideas from. Finally, as the local
meetups grow, “the dots on the map” becomes very impressive. This tells
future community members that this is a vibrant community that will have a
lasting impact on programming and you want to be part of this community.
(BTW go to Hyperledger’s page to see an impressive number of dots on the
map)[1]
Having an Umbrella Group also prevents or at least makes it tougher for the
“wild west” of meetup organizations to happen. For Apache Hadoop, both
Cloudera and Hortonworks sponsored competing meetups early on, which led to
tons of problems for that community around vendor neutrality. We can avoid
this can of worms for Apache Pulsar by providing oversight and guidance
from the beginning.
Thus, given the above and that it is better for the organizers, better for
the PMC’s responsibility to oversee vendor neutrality, and better for users
and potential users to manage meetups with a little more structure, I would
recommend that the PMC go forward with giving its blessing to the Umbrella
model.
Thanks,
Aaron
[1] https://www.meetup.com/pro/hyperledger
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 8:03 AM Sree Vaddi <sr...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote:
> This meetup was the oldest, started by founders of the Apache Pulsar.It
> has 338 members. And recent event in May 2021.
>
> https://www.meetup.com/SF-Bay-Area-Apache-Pulsar-Meetup/
>
>
> Thank you./Sree
>
> On Thursday, August 19, 2021, 05:35:43 AM PDT, Jonathan Ellis <
> jbellis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Moving back to dev.
>
> Since it seems like there's some confusion on this point, it's perfectly
> normal for PMC discussions around new proposals with decision-making
> authority by the PMC to take place on the public dev list. The private
> list is only necessary when confidentiality is required, and the dev list
> allows non-PMC voices to be heard more readily as well as promoting
> transparency on how consensus was reached.
>
> I am not aware of any ASF policy that would prohibit subcommittees like
> this. (I'm not aware of precedent in starting one either, but as Aaron
> pointed out, this *is* common at similar foundations with similar
> governance goals to the ASF, and there's no reason we can't cross-pollinate
> good ideas.)
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:47 AM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Moving dev@ to BCC. I believe the following two major issues should be
> > discussed and addressed in the original email thread with PMC.
> >
> > 1) Creating sub-committees composed of vendor representatives isn't
> > violating the ASF policy. This PMC has expressed concerns when the
> original
> > proposal was raised. Those concerns should be addressed first.
> >
> > 2) Mis-usage of "Apache Pulsar Community" without any PMC members
> involved.
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > I think everyone in the PMC appreciates the meetup organizers for
> > organizing meetups and encourages people to create Pulsar meetups without
> > any constraints. Coordinating and organizing meetups doesn't require a
> > committee to do so.
> >
> > - Sijie
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:09 PM Chris Latimer <ch...@chrislatimer.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Matteo,
> > >
> > > I'm sorry if my last message suggested that volunteering to take on an
> > effort gives anyone the right to start acting on behalf of the PMC. That
> > certainly wasn't my intent. The original message in this thread proposed
> a
> > way to help people who want to organize meetups do so more successfully.
> I
> > only meant to register my appreciation for the community members who are
> > willing to volunteer their time and energy to help facilitate awareness
> and
> > excitement about the technology and express how personally disappointed I
> > would be to see the PMC take a position that prohibits this kind of
> > community development activity.
> > >
> > > Thank you for taking my perspective into consideration.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Chris Latimer
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:08 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I think it's entirely understandable for the PMC to say "we don't
> > want to
> > >> > be responsible for this", but it would be highly unfortunate for the
> > PMC to
> > >> > say "we don't want to be responsible for this AND no one from the
> > community
> > >> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
> > >> > volunteering to take on the effort.
> > >>
> > >> That was *absolutely not* what was answered.
> > >>
> > >> I re-quote my answer from before:
> > >>
> > >> ======
> > >> * Everyone is allowed (and encouraged!) to create and promote events
> > >> around Apache Pulsar (following the ASF guidelines on trademarks)
> > >> * Using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the organizer is a
> > >> mischaracterization, since that effort is not coming from the
> > Pulsar
> > >> PMC
> > >> * These events should be renamed to something that makes it
> > >> absolutely clear this is not from Pulsar PMC
> > >> ======
> > >>
> > >> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
> > >> > volunteering to take on the effort.
> > >>
> > >> Volunteering to take on the effort doesn't give the right to start
> > >> acting on behalf of the PMC.
> >
>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>.
BCC: private@
The bulk of this discussion should proceed with good intent on dev@ with a separate thread on private@ only if needed.
I have prepared a set of links to documentation about the Apache Way that is worth reviewing:
https://petri.apache.org/way <https://petri.apache.org/way>
Hierarchy in an Apache project should be as flat as possible.
On dev@ an open discussion about the Apache Pulsar Community should be proceed about:
(1) Communications
- How do the members of the community let the community know what they have been doing?
- How should that be done to show vendor neutrality?
The standard answer is to mention progress on dev@. Other solutions are possible and anyone who is interested should be able to contribute and earn merit in the community. If community volunteers produce a Newsletter that should not bother the PMC.
(2) Meetups - There are a number of questions here and I am likely to miss a few.
- There has been a semi-official Meetup organized by Sree Vadi since Incubation.
- Others wish to his Meetups.
- It can only benefit the whole of the Pulsar Community to communicate all meetups where the commits can know about it.
While it might appear that everyone is far apart I think that people should make one or more proposals. Then there can be a discussion without summary veto from PMC members. Sometimes Consensus is hard.
All The Best,
Dave
> On Aug 20, 2021, at 12:46 AM, Rajan Dhabalia <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> *I think the Apache project should avoid vendor-specific branding, in that
> way users will have a clear understanding about what they can receive from
> the free Apache project. In support of that, the Apache project should be
> driven by the community/PMC who are the real contributors to the project
> and let every member participate in each decision process. Therefore, I
> feel subcommittees will not give justice to every PMC member of the project
> and may create confusion to the users about the ownership and branding of
> the project. Therefore, we should address all those concerns that are
> misleading users about project branding or make users think that the Apache
> project is driven by a specific vendor. I think ASF branding policy
> <https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence.html> summarises it very
> well: “Third-party software product must be clearly branded such that,
> users clearly understand the different sources for software products such
> as Apache Foo (from the ASF) and BigCo SuperThing, Powered By Apache Foo
> (from BigCo).”Thanks,Rajan*
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:49 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 5:35 AM Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Moving back to dev.
>>>
>>> Since it seems like there's some confusion on this point, it's perfectly
>>> normal for PMC discussions around new proposals with decision-making
>>> authority by the PMC to take place on the public dev list. The private
>>> list is only necessary when confidentiality is required, and the dev list
>>> allows non-PMC voices to be heard more readily as well as promoting
>>> transparency on how consensus was reached.
>>>
>>> I am not aware of any ASF policy that would prohibit subcommittees like
>>> this. (I'm not aware of precedent in starting one either, but as Aaron
>>> pointed out, this *is* common at similar foundations with similar
>>> governance goals to the ASF, and there's no reason we can't
>> cross-pollinate
>>> good ideas.)
>>
>> Jonathan,
>>
>> If you keep switching from private@ to dev@ list, most of the people
>> on dev@ list will be out of context of the replies from other PMC
>> members on the private list.
>>
>> Your proposal of subcommittees has already raised strong concerns from
>> 4 PMC members, with no one speaking in favour of it.
>>
>>> I am not aware of any ASF policy that would prohibit subcommittees like
>>> this
>>
>> The part of your proposal of including representatives of vendors in
>> these subcommittees goes directly against the spirit of these
>> guidelines: https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence.html
>>
>> Matteo
>>
>> --
>> Matteo Merli
>> <mm...@apache.org>
>>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Rajan Dhabalia <rd...@apache.org>.
*I think the Apache project should avoid vendor-specific branding, in that
way users will have a clear understanding about what they can receive from
the free Apache project. In support of that, the Apache project should be
driven by the community/PMC who are the real contributors to the project
and let every member participate in each decision process. Therefore, I
feel subcommittees will not give justice to every PMC member of the project
and may create confusion to the users about the ownership and branding of
the project. Therefore, we should address all those concerns that are
misleading users about project branding or make users think that the Apache
project is driven by a specific vendor. I think ASF branding policy
<https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence.html> summarises it very
well: “Third-party software product must be clearly branded such that,
users clearly understand the different sources for software products such
as Apache Foo (from the ASF) and BigCo SuperThing, Powered By Apache Foo
(from BigCo).”Thanks,Rajan*
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:49 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 5:35 AM Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Moving back to dev.
> >
> > Since it seems like there's some confusion on this point, it's perfectly
> > normal for PMC discussions around new proposals with decision-making
> > authority by the PMC to take place on the public dev list. The private
> > list is only necessary when confidentiality is required, and the dev list
> > allows non-PMC voices to be heard more readily as well as promoting
> > transparency on how consensus was reached.
> >
> > I am not aware of any ASF policy that would prohibit subcommittees like
> > this. (I'm not aware of precedent in starting one either, but as Aaron
> > pointed out, this *is* common at similar foundations with similar
> > governance goals to the ASF, and there's no reason we can't
> cross-pollinate
> > good ideas.)
>
> Jonathan,
>
> If you keep switching from private@ to dev@ list, most of the people
> on dev@ list will be out of context of the replies from other PMC
> members on the private list.
>
> Your proposal of subcommittees has already raised strong concerns from
> 4 PMC members, with no one speaking in favour of it.
>
> > I am not aware of any ASF policy that would prohibit subcommittees like
> > this
>
> The part of your proposal of including representatives of vendors in
> these subcommittees goes directly against the spirit of these
> guidelines: https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence.html
>
> Matteo
>
> --
> Matteo Merli
> <mm...@apache.org>
>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 5:35 AM Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Moving back to dev.
>
> Since it seems like there's some confusion on this point, it's perfectly
> normal for PMC discussions around new proposals with decision-making
> authority by the PMC to take place on the public dev list. The private
> list is only necessary when confidentiality is required, and the dev list
> allows non-PMC voices to be heard more readily as well as promoting
> transparency on how consensus was reached.
>
> I am not aware of any ASF policy that would prohibit subcommittees like
> this. (I'm not aware of precedent in starting one either, but as Aaron
> pointed out, this *is* common at similar foundations with similar
> governance goals to the ASF, and there's no reason we can't cross-pollinate
> good ideas.)
Jonathan,
If you keep switching from private@ to dev@ list, most of the people
on dev@ list will be out of context of the replies from other PMC
members on the private list.
Your proposal of subcommittees has already raised strong concerns from
4 PMC members, with no one speaking in favour of it.
> I am not aware of any ASF policy that would prohibit subcommittees like
> this
The part of your proposal of including representatives of vendors in
these subcommittees goes directly against the spirit of these
guidelines: https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence.html
Matteo
--
Matteo Merli
<mm...@apache.org>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Sree Vaddi <sr...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
This meetup was the oldest, started by founders of the Apache Pulsar.It has 338 members. And recent event in May 2021.
https://www.meetup.com/SF-Bay-Area-Apache-Pulsar-Meetup/
Thank you./Sree
On Thursday, August 19, 2021, 05:35:43 AM PDT, Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Moving back to dev.
Since it seems like there's some confusion on this point, it's perfectly
normal for PMC discussions around new proposals with decision-making
authority by the PMC to take place on the public dev list. The private
list is only necessary when confidentiality is required, and the dev list
allows non-PMC voices to be heard more readily as well as promoting
transparency on how consensus was reached.
I am not aware of any ASF policy that would prohibit subcommittees like
this. (I'm not aware of precedent in starting one either, but as Aaron
pointed out, this *is* common at similar foundations with similar
governance goals to the ASF, and there's no reason we can't cross-pollinate
good ideas.)
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:47 AM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moving dev@ to BCC. I believe the following two major issues should be
> discussed and addressed in the original email thread with PMC.
>
> 1) Creating sub-committees composed of vendor representatives isn't
> violating the ASF policy. This PMC has expressed concerns when the original
> proposal was raised. Those concerns should be addressed first.
>
> 2) Mis-usage of "Apache Pulsar Community" without any PMC members involved.
>
> Chris,
>
> I think everyone in the PMC appreciates the meetup organizers for
> organizing meetups and encourages people to create Pulsar meetups without
> any constraints. Coordinating and organizing meetups doesn't require a
> committee to do so.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:09 PM Chris Latimer <ch...@chrislatimer.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Matteo,
> >
> > I'm sorry if my last message suggested that volunteering to take on an
> effort gives anyone the right to start acting on behalf of the PMC. That
> certainly wasn't my intent. The original message in this thread proposed a
> way to help people who want to organize meetups do so more successfully. I
> only meant to register my appreciation for the community members who are
> willing to volunteer their time and energy to help facilitate awareness and
> excitement about the technology and express how personally disappointed I
> would be to see the PMC take a position that prohibits this kind of
> community development activity.
> >
> > Thank you for taking my perspective into consideration.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Chris Latimer
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:08 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think it's entirely understandable for the PMC to say "we don't
> want to
> >> > be responsible for this", but it would be highly unfortunate for the
> PMC to
> >> > say "we don't want to be responsible for this AND no one from the
> community
> >> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
> >> > volunteering to take on the effort.
> >>
> >> That was *absolutely not* what was answered.
> >>
> >> I re-quote my answer from before:
> >>
> >> ======
> >> * Everyone is allowed (and encouraged!) to create and promote events
> >> around Apache Pulsar (following the ASF guidelines on trademarks)
> >> * Using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the organizer is a
> >> mischaracterization, since that effort is not coming from the
> Pulsar
> >> PMC
> >> * These events should be renamed to something that makes it
> >> absolutely clear this is not from Pulsar PMC
> >> ======
> >>
> >> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
> >> > volunteering to take on the effort.
> >>
> >> Volunteering to take on the effort doesn't give the right to start
> >> acting on behalf of the PMC.
>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com>.
Moving back to dev.
Since it seems like there's some confusion on this point, it's perfectly
normal for PMC discussions around new proposals with decision-making
authority by the PMC to take place on the public dev list. The private
list is only necessary when confidentiality is required, and the dev list
allows non-PMC voices to be heard more readily as well as promoting
transparency on how consensus was reached.
I am not aware of any ASF policy that would prohibit subcommittees like
this. (I'm not aware of precedent in starting one either, but as Aaron
pointed out, this *is* common at similar foundations with similar
governance goals to the ASF, and there's no reason we can't cross-pollinate
good ideas.)
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:47 AM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moving dev@ to BCC. I believe the following two major issues should be
> discussed and addressed in the original email thread with PMC.
>
> 1) Creating sub-committees composed of vendor representatives isn't
> violating the ASF policy. This PMC has expressed concerns when the original
> proposal was raised. Those concerns should be addressed first.
>
> 2) Mis-usage of "Apache Pulsar Community" without any PMC members involved.
>
> Chris,
>
> I think everyone in the PMC appreciates the meetup organizers for
> organizing meetups and encourages people to create Pulsar meetups without
> any constraints. Coordinating and organizing meetups doesn't require a
> committee to do so.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:09 PM Chris Latimer <ch...@chrislatimer.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Matteo,
> >
> > I'm sorry if my last message suggested that volunteering to take on an
> effort gives anyone the right to start acting on behalf of the PMC. That
> certainly wasn't my intent. The original message in this thread proposed a
> way to help people who want to organize meetups do so more successfully. I
> only meant to register my appreciation for the community members who are
> willing to volunteer their time and energy to help facilitate awareness and
> excitement about the technology and express how personally disappointed I
> would be to see the PMC take a position that prohibits this kind of
> community development activity.
> >
> > Thank you for taking my perspective into consideration.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Chris Latimer
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:08 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think it's entirely understandable for the PMC to say "we don't
> want to
> >> > be responsible for this", but it would be highly unfortunate for the
> PMC to
> >> > say "we don't want to be responsible for this AND no one from the
> community
> >> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
> >> > volunteering to take on the effort.
> >>
> >> That was *absolutely not* what was answered.
> >>
> >> I re-quote my answer from before:
> >>
> >> ======
> >> * Everyone is allowed (and encouraged!) to create and promote events
> >> around Apache Pulsar (following the ASF guidelines on trademarks)
> >> * Using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the organizer is a
> >> mischaracterization, since that effort is not coming from the
> Pulsar
> >> PMC
> >> * These events should be renamed to something that makes it
> >> absolutely clear this is not from Pulsar PMC
> >> ======
> >>
> >> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
> >> > volunteering to take on the effort.
> >>
> >> Volunteering to take on the effort doesn't give the right to start
> >> acting on behalf of the PMC.
>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
Sorry for the typo:
"isn't violating the ASF policy" -> "is violating the ASF policy"
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:46 PM Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moving dev@ to BCC. I believe the following two major issues should be
> discussed and addressed in the original email thread with PMC.
>
> 1) Creating sub-committees composed of vendor representatives isn't
> violating the ASF policy. This PMC has expressed concerns when the original
> proposal was raised. Those concerns should be addressed first.
>
> 2) Mis-usage of "Apache Pulsar Community" without any PMC members involved.
>
> Chris,
>
> I think everyone in the PMC appreciates the meetup organizers for
> organizing meetups and encourages people to create Pulsar meetups without
> any constraints. Coordinating and organizing meetups doesn't require a
> committee to do so.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:09 PM Chris Latimer <ch...@chrislatimer.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Matteo,
> >
> > I'm sorry if my last message suggested that volunteering to take on an
> effort gives anyone the right to start acting on behalf of the PMC. That
> certainly wasn't my intent. The original message in this thread proposed a
> way to help people who want to organize meetups do so more successfully. I
> only meant to register my appreciation for the community members who are
> willing to volunteer their time and energy to help facilitate awareness and
> excitement about the technology and express how personally disappointed I
> would be to see the PMC take a position that prohibits this kind of
> community development activity.
> >
> > Thank you for taking my perspective into consideration.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Chris Latimer
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:08 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think it's entirely understandable for the PMC to say "we don't
> want to
> >> > be responsible for this", but it would be highly unfortunate for the
> PMC to
> >> > say "we don't want to be responsible for this AND no one from the
> community
> >> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
> >> > volunteering to take on the effort.
> >>
> >> That was *absolutely not* what was answered.
> >>
> >> I re-quote my answer from before:
> >>
> >> ======
> >> * Everyone is allowed (and encouraged!) to create and promote events
> >> around Apache Pulsar (following the ASF guidelines on trademarks)
> >> * Using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the organizer is a
> >> mischaracterization, since that effort is not coming from the
> Pulsar
> >> PMC
> >> * These events should be renamed to something that makes it
> >> absolutely clear this is not from Pulsar PMC
> >> ======
> >>
> >> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
> >> > volunteering to take on the effort.
> >>
> >> Volunteering to take on the effort doesn't give the right to start
> >> acting on behalf of the PMC.
>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Sijie Guo <gu...@gmail.com>.
Moving dev@ to BCC. I believe the following two major issues should be
discussed and addressed in the original email thread with PMC.
1) Creating sub-committees composed of vendor representatives isn't
violating the ASF policy. This PMC has expressed concerns when the original
proposal was raised. Those concerns should be addressed first.
2) Mis-usage of "Apache Pulsar Community" without any PMC members involved.
Chris,
I think everyone in the PMC appreciates the meetup organizers for
organizing meetups and encourages people to create Pulsar meetups without
any constraints. Coordinating and organizing meetups doesn't require a
committee to do so.
- Sijie
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:09 PM Chris Latimer <ch...@chrislatimer.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi Matteo,
>
> I'm sorry if my last message suggested that volunteering to take on an
effort gives anyone the right to start acting on behalf of the PMC. That
certainly wasn't my intent. The original message in this thread proposed a
way to help people who want to organize meetups do so more successfully. I
only meant to register my appreciation for the community members who are
willing to volunteer their time and energy to help facilitate awareness and
excitement about the technology and express how personally disappointed I
would be to see the PMC take a position that prohibits this kind of
community development activity.
>
> Thank you for taking my perspective into consideration.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chris Latimer
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:08 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I think it's entirely understandable for the PMC to say "we don't want
to
>> > be responsible for this", but it would be highly unfortunate for the
PMC to
>> > say "we don't want to be responsible for this AND no one from the
community
>> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
>> > volunteering to take on the effort.
>>
>> That was *absolutely not* what was answered.
>>
>> I re-quote my answer from before:
>>
>> ======
>> * Everyone is allowed (and encouraged!) to create and promote events
>> around Apache Pulsar (following the ASF guidelines on trademarks)
>> * Using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the organizer is a
>> mischaracterization, since that effort is not coming from the Pulsar
>> PMC
>> * These events should be renamed to something that makes it
>> absolutely clear this is not from Pulsar PMC
>> ======
>>
>> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
>> > volunteering to take on the effort.
>>
>> Volunteering to take on the effort doesn't give the right to start
>> acting on behalf of the PMC.
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Chris Latimer <ch...@chrislatimer.com>.
Hi Matteo,
I'm sorry if my last message suggested that volunteering to take on an
effort gives anyone the right to start acting on behalf of the PMC. That
certainly wasn't my intent. The original message in this thread proposed a
way to help people who want to organize meetups do so more successfully. I
only meant to register my appreciation for the community members who are
willing to volunteer their time and energy to help facilitate awareness and
excitement about the technology and express how personally disappointed I
would be to see the PMC take a position that prohibits this kind of
community development activity.
Thank you for taking my perspective into consideration.
Sincerely,
Chris Latimer
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:08 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I think it's entirely understandable for the PMC to say "we don't want to
> > be responsible for this", but it would be highly unfortunate for the PMC
> to
> > say "we don't want to be responsible for this AND no one from the
> community
> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
> > volunteering to take on the effort.
>
> That was *absolutely not* what was answered.
>
> I re-quote my answer from before:
>
> ======
> * Everyone is allowed (and encouraged!) to create and promote events
> around Apache Pulsar (following the ASF guidelines on trademarks)
> * Using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the organizer is a
> mischaracterization, since that effort is not coming from the Pulsar
> PMC
> * These events should be renamed to something that makes it
> absolutely clear this is not from Pulsar PMC
> ======
>
> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
> > volunteering to take on the effort.
>
> Volunteering to take on the effort doesn't give the right to start
> acting on behalf of the PMC.
>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org>.
> I think it's entirely understandable for the PMC to say "we don't want to
> be responsible for this", but it would be highly unfortunate for the PMC to
> say "we don't want to be responsible for this AND no one from the community
> is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
> volunteering to take on the effort.
That was *absolutely not* what was answered.
I re-quote my answer from before:
======
* Everyone is allowed (and encouraged!) to create and promote events
around Apache Pulsar (following the ASF guidelines on trademarks)
* Using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the organizer is a
mischaracterization, since that effort is not coming from the Pulsar
PMC
* These events should be renamed to something that makes it
absolutely clear this is not from Pulsar PMC
======
> is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
> volunteering to take on the effort.
Volunteering to take on the effort doesn't give the right to start
acting on behalf of the PMC.
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Chris Latimer <ch...@chrislatimer.com>.
Hi everyone, long time reader, first time poster. :-)
Here are my two cents: I would like to see the PMC encourage anyone and
everyone who is willing to volunteer their time and effort to do things
that will help the community grow (as long as it adheres to Apache policies
of course). There are a lot of failed MeetUps that never get off the ground
because organizing them, finding a space for them, finding speakers and
building awareness is not easy! Anyone who has tried to organize a new user
group or meetup can attest to this. I am super happy to see a willingness
from community members to put their effort into helping other community
members who want to take on the role of organizer. It helps improve the
chances of success for MeetUps and that is a good thing for the community
in my view.
I think it's entirely understandable for the PMC to say "we don't want to
be responsible for this", but it would be highly unfortunate for the PMC to
say "we don't want to be responsible for this AND no one from the community
is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people
volunteering to take on the effort.
Chris Latimer
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 5:22 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 3:15 PM Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Matteo,
> >
> > You will remember that I brought up the subcommittee idea in private
> > yesterday, and followed up today [before the email you sent and quoted
> > here] with an intention to start this public thread.
>
> There have been several concerns expressed by the PMC about the
> proposal of sub-committees composed of vendor representatives. I don't
> think any of the concerns were addressed so far.
>
> To reiterate my opinion on this matter:
>
> 1. Contribution to the ASF is always as an individual, not as a company.
> 2. One person == One vote. It's not because a person is a
> representative of a company that his/her opinion should have more
> weight.
> 3. ASF is based on meritocracy. People are invited on as
> committers/PMC members based on their contributions to the project,
> not for belonging to a particular organization.
> 4. Creating sub-committees would essentially carve out the
> prerogatives of the PMC and the oversight that it's responsible to
> exercise.
> 5. Ultimately, the decision here belongs to the Pulsar PMC and it has
> to fit within the rules and spirit of the ASF.
>
> > Meanwhile, Aaron has not been hiding the groundwork he is laying for
> > meetups, including collaborating with your colleagues Tim Spann and
> Dianjin
> > Wang at StreamNative.
>
> What I contested was not the "hiding" part. The problem with this
> effort is that it was conducted completely outside of the PMC, while
> at the same time trying to portray it as an official effort of the
> PMC.
>
> To recap:
> * Everyone is allowed (and encouraged!) to create and promote events
> around Apache Pulsar (following the ASF guidelines on trademarks)
> * Using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the organizer is a
> mischaracterization, since that effort is not coming from the Pulsar
> PMC
> * These events should be renamed to something that makes it
> absolutely clear this is not from Pulsar PMC
>
> The eventuality of the PMC getting directly involved in organizing
> these events is something on which the Pulsar PMC would have to weigh
> in, although I don't see a lot of support for the idea so far.
>
> > But this is where it would be nice to have a Marketing /Communication
> > committee. We had them for the projects at my last position when I was
> at
> > a different foundation
>
> Aaron: the way organizations interact in other foundations (like CNCF,
> as one example) is very different from Apache. That's not to say one
> is "good" and the other is "bad", just that it is different and each
> approach has its pros and cons.
>
> Matteo
>
> --
> Matteo Merli
> <mm...@apache.org>
>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 3:15 PM Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Matteo,
>
> You will remember that I brought up the subcommittee idea in private
> yesterday, and followed up today [before the email you sent and quoted
> here] with an intention to start this public thread.
There have been several concerns expressed by the PMC about the
proposal of sub-committees composed of vendor representatives. I don't
think any of the concerns were addressed so far.
To reiterate my opinion on this matter:
1. Contribution to the ASF is always as an individual, not as a company.
2. One person == One vote. It's not because a person is a
representative of a company that his/her opinion should have more
weight.
3. ASF is based on meritocracy. People are invited on as
committers/PMC members based on their contributions to the project,
not for belonging to a particular organization.
4. Creating sub-committees would essentially carve out the
prerogatives of the PMC and the oversight that it's responsible to
exercise.
5. Ultimately, the decision here belongs to the Pulsar PMC and it has
to fit within the rules and spirit of the ASF.
> Meanwhile, Aaron has not been hiding the groundwork he is laying for
> meetups, including collaborating with your colleagues Tim Spann and Dianjin
> Wang at StreamNative.
What I contested was not the "hiding" part. The problem with this
effort is that it was conducted completely outside of the PMC, while
at the same time trying to portray it as an official effort of the
PMC.
To recap:
* Everyone is allowed (and encouraged!) to create and promote events
around Apache Pulsar (following the ASF guidelines on trademarks)
* Using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the organizer is a
mischaracterization, since that effort is not coming from the Pulsar
PMC
* These events should be renamed to something that makes it
absolutely clear this is not from Pulsar PMC
The eventuality of the PMC getting directly involved in organizing
these events is something on which the Pulsar PMC would have to weigh
in, although I don't see a lot of support for the idea so far.
> But this is where it would be nice to have a Marketing /Communication
> committee. We had them for the projects at my last position when I was at
> a different foundation
Aaron: the way organizations interact in other foundations (like CNCF,
as one example) is very different from Apache. That's not to say one
is "good" and the other is "bad", just that it is different and each
approach has its pros and cons.
Matteo
--
Matteo Merli
<mm...@apache.org>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com>.
Hi Matteo,
You will remember that I brought up the subcommittee idea in private
yesterday, and followed up today [before the email you sent and quoted
here] with an intention to start this public thread.
Meanwhile, Aaron has not been hiding the groundwork he is laying for
meetups, including collaborating with your colleagues Tim Spann and Dianjin
Wang at StreamNative.
I’m sure you can understand my desire to bring any outstanding issues
around vendor neutrality to the attention of the PMC in private before
bringing this to the table. I apologize for any confusion caused by this
delay.
I hope that clears things up.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 2:36 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Since this proposal comes as a reaction to a discussion that was
> already happening on the private@ PMC mailing list, I want to add the
> context.
>
> This was my original comment, where I was pointing out the
> inappropriateness of the Meetup group namings.
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 1:34 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
> ========================================================
> I just happen to find out that it has been created a "Meetup Pro
> Account", called "Apache-Pulsar". This organization is called "Apache
> Pulsar Community" and there 3 newly created meetups that are all being
> "Organized by Apache Pulsar Community".
>
> https://www.meetup.com/pro/apache-pulsar/
>
> Even though this event hasn't yet reached the attendance of 200
> people, where a formal approval by PMC and ASF trademark is required,
> I think this is intentionally misleading the people about its nature.
>
> It fails to convey that:
> * This is not sanctioned by the PMC. Actually, no one from the PMC
> was involved.
> * This is organized by a specific vendor, whose name is not mentioned
> in the page.
> * This is not organized by the "Apache Pulsar Community"
> ========================================================
>
> Additionally, also as discussed in the private list, all contributors
> in Apache are contributing as individuals, and there is no "vendor"
> representation role. For that, I don't think having sub-committees
> with representatives of vendors to drive project activity under the
> ASF umbrella is a good idea (or something that the ASF would be ok
> with).
>
> Finally, I find it a bit preposterous to now make it a proposal to the
> community, only after the above points were raised.
>
> Matteo
>
>
> --
> Matteo Merli
> <mm...@apache.org>
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 12:11 PM Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Meetups are an important part of community building and knowledge sharing
> > for open source projects like Apache Pulsar. At the same time, the work
> of
> > recruiting speakers and organizing sponsors [1] is both time consuming
> and
> > not core to project governance.
> >
> > I propose that the PMC designate a small community communications
> > subcommittee (with representatives from multiple vendors as well as
> > unaffiliated participants) to organize monthly community meetups. This
> > makeup will help guarantee vendor neutrality moving forward.
> >
> > In the meantime, my colleague Aaron Williams has created an umbrella
> group
> > [2] at Meetup to facilitate coordination there. We are ready to turn
> this
> > over to the Apache Pulsar PMC.
> >
> > [1] we can expect that sponsors to pay for food and drink will be
> relevant
> > again, hopefully soon!
> > [2] https://www.meetup.com/pro/apache-pulsar/
>
Re: Proposing a meetup organizing committee
Posted by Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org>.
Since this proposal comes as a reaction to a discussion that was
already happening on the private@ PMC mailing list, I want to add the
context.
This was my original comment, where I was pointing out the
inappropriateness of the Meetup group namings.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 1:34 PM Matteo Merli <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
========================================================
I just happen to find out that it has been created a "Meetup Pro
Account", called "Apache-Pulsar". This organization is called "Apache
Pulsar Community" and there 3 newly created meetups that are all being
"Organized by Apache Pulsar Community".
https://www.meetup.com/pro/apache-pulsar/
Even though this event hasn't yet reached the attendance of 200
people, where a formal approval by PMC and ASF trademark is required,
I think this is intentionally misleading the people about its nature.
It fails to convey that:
* This is not sanctioned by the PMC. Actually, no one from the PMC
was involved.
* This is organized by a specific vendor, whose name is not mentioned
in the page.
* This is not organized by the "Apache Pulsar Community"
========================================================
Additionally, also as discussed in the private list, all contributors
in Apache are contributing as individuals, and there is no "vendor"
representation role. For that, I don't think having sub-committees
with representatives of vendors to drive project activity under the
ASF umbrella is a good idea (or something that the ASF would be ok
with).
Finally, I find it a bit preposterous to now make it a proposal to the
community, only after the above points were raised.
Matteo
--
Matteo Merli
<mm...@apache.org>
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 12:11 PM Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Meetups are an important part of community building and knowledge sharing
> for open source projects like Apache Pulsar. At the same time, the work of
> recruiting speakers and organizing sponsors [1] is both time consuming and
> not core to project governance.
>
> I propose that the PMC designate a small community communications
> subcommittee (with representatives from multiple vendors as well as
> unaffiliated participants) to organize monthly community meetups. This
> makeup will help guarantee vendor neutrality moving forward.
>
> In the meantime, my colleague Aaron Williams has created an umbrella group
> [2] at Meetup to facilitate coordination there. We are ready to turn this
> over to the Apache Pulsar PMC.
>
> [1] we can expect that sponsors to pay for food and drink will be relevant
> again, hopefully soon!
> [2] https://www.meetup.com/pro/apache-pulsar/