You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to women@apache.org by "Brian W. Fitzpatrick" <fi...@red-bean.com> on 2005/08/12 03:26:29 UTC
Mired in procedures (was Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org)
On Aug 11, 2005, at 7:54 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
> my understanding of the pmc's are that they are not meant for that
> kind of discussions.
> but yes... that would do..
> but my point still stands.. the 'pmc/whatever you call it' should be
> made up of ASF members/comitters just like all the others.
>
> anyone want to hold a re-vote on these breakup/idea?
Oh geez, this is getting ridiculous. We had a 100+ email flame war
on board@ just to get this list, and now you want *another* mailing
list? Can't we just discuss here for a while and see what happens?
Sorry for my short tone here, but I'm getting more than a little
frustrated with the "let's discuss what we're going to discuss"
attitude. You don't *start* a garden by dropping 4 seeds in the
middle of your backyard--you plant the seeds in a little pot and tend
to them carefully, only transplanting them once they've gotten too
big for their original (small) home.
So, if it's not clear, I'm a HUGE -1 on re-voting, breaking up,
whatever. Let's get on with it people.
-Fitz
Re: Mired in procedures (was Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers
to women@apache.org)
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Oh geez, this is getting ridiculous. We had a 100+ email flame war on
> board@ just to get this list, and now you want *another* mailing list?
> Can't we just discuss here for a while and see what happens? Sorry for
> my short tone here, but I'm getting more than a little frustrated with
> the "let's discuss what we're going to discuss" attitude.
8< snip
> So, if it's not clear, I'm a HUGE -1 on re-voting, breaking up,
> whatever. Let's get on with it people.
+100
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQvyxbJrNPMCpn3XdAQIqwQP+Oxu/s0A+AQ8r19bwRuMv1Qhh+zg3Oj/K
gt2rvYmLpNrPJeZ27ffVz7zCK7yGd4CUfvcmAq4pjHzCc7OxOOXt/KlsbVa7HL/G
ZWR6PWcoEmoRALp2zrLFf7OGCXdmfZqyZh81bhJTkrbN1Y8GFOjDNt7QchJMt1Bc
gEnxUQCeW24=
=XdOF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Mired in procedures (was Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers
to women@apache.org)
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
susan wu wrote:
>
> I am +1. The reason being that there's no reason why we shouldn't get
> women involved today, while we try to sort out our strategy behind the
> scenes. So I agree- one list for ascertaining what our official position
> and programs are in support of a recruitment/enlightenment effort, and
> one for getting women involved in dialogue with the community -today-.
> As Jean mentions, there are women who could benefit from our mentoring
> immediately, with whom we could share best practices. On the other
> hand, there are issues for which we have not reached consensus that
> should remain internal until we do reach consensus.
Um, +1 on what? On the vote that started this thread, about not
restricting subscriptions to at-least-committers? Or +1 to the
tangential ideas Ian is raising, which should be discussed in a
separate thread?
A 'VOTE' shouldn't be repurposed in the voting thread. If someone
feels the whole topic is badly phrased or otherwise premature,
metadiscussion *about* the vote should happen in a separate thread
so as to not cloud the issue (as here) of who's voting which way on
what.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQvzB75rNPMCpn3XdAQJDSgQA3dfvbFPW23XjU1bm1RpnGdSHA81RYs5r
DOUxvdGyzaFCNsP+cua+WaoNNh2hkC53/E7dWtJo8/HMvDWWExNQ/2mCtuHVFTuN
VW7XmNQZ8ejtS5vsCO5ZHlEYKhnxQbHn4PoOncmdrxXuPOzkozSo2BZSygCN4reA
i3BWker0E+k=
=oHCM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Mired in procedures (was Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers
to women@apache.org)
Posted by susan wu <su...@arctic.org>.
> but honestly I see 2 different needs here.
>
> 1. getting women more involved - - how do we get this done
>
> 2. helping new people/women out/ learning the ropes
>
I am +1. The reason being that there's no reason why we shouldn't get
women involved today, while we try to sort out our strategy behind the
scenes. So I agree- one list for ascertaining what our official position
and programs are in support of a recruitment/enlightenment effort, and one
for getting women involved in dialogue with the community -today-. As
Jean mentions, there are women who could benefit from our mentoring
immediately, with whom we could share best practices. On the other hand,
there are issues for which we have not reached consensus that should
remain internal until we do reach consensus.
Re: Mired in procedures (was Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers
to women@apache.org)
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ian Holsman wrote:
> but honestly I see 2 different needs here.
Fine. We need to decide which one (if you've got them right)
should be served by this list -- and leave it at that. If
you want the other need served, then work on getting another
list.
Although I don't see why a list has to be single-purposed.
> that is why I suggested splitting up. one is a operational one, the
> other is strategic.
Good summation. By all means please start the proposal for
a strategic list. It's pretty obvious to me that this one
is meant to be 'operational' (or 'tactical' if you prefer).
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQvyyKZrNPMCpn3XdAQKYCQP+Ibe88H9+ZhOH6ZrK6bV310WwDgnh8qvJ
qyIB0phbiwheUrMl/O6Q6NQaiwiynM6foGt4zHkwP6WqTarybEmIR9r3+RRrSLHo
/E4wy4R0VhJxBKrzmXBROX9YpQKJ+4r+P6rjWVyJssd58yzKZzZ8/qiZAVsdpj2P
H5U05Uzsfbc=
=yRjX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Mired in procedures (was Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org)
Posted by Ian Holsman <kr...@gmail.com>.
but honestly I see 2 different needs here.
1. getting women more involved - - how do we get this done
2. helping new people/women out/ learning the ropes
both of these needs have different audiences, different objectives,
and different measures
of success.
that is why I suggested splitting up. one is a operational one, the
other is strategic.
I see you disagree, thats OK ..
but I don't see how having one list could address both of these needs
at the same time, without the two needs getting all tangled up in each
other.
-i
On 8/12/05, Brian W. Fitzpatrick <fi...@red-bean.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 11, 2005, at 7:54 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> > my understanding of the pmc's are that they are not meant for that
> > kind of discussions.
> > but yes... that would do..
> > but my point still stands.. the 'pmc/whatever you call it' should be
> > made up of ASF members/comitters just like all the others.
> >
> > anyone want to hold a re-vote on these breakup/idea?
>
> Oh geez, this is getting ridiculous. We had a 100+ email flame war
> on board@ just to get this list, and now you want *another* mailing
> list? Can't we just discuss here for a while and see what happens?
> Sorry for my short tone here, but I'm getting more than a little
> frustrated with the "let's discuss what we're going to discuss"
> attitude. You don't *start* a garden by dropping 4 seeds in the
> middle of your backyard--you plant the seeds in a little pot and tend
> to them carefully, only transplanting them once they've gotten too
> big for their original (small) home.
>
> So, if it's not clear, I'm a HUGE -1 on re-voting, breaking up,
> whatever. Let's get on with it people.
>
> -Fitz
>
--
Ian@Holsman.net -- 03-9877-0909
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough. -
Mario Andretti