You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@fineract.apache.org by James Dailey <ja...@gmail.com> on 2021/10/14 04:24:13 UTC
Clarifying Norms on Fineract
All -
Apache Fineract operates under the rules established by the Apache
Software Foundation.
https://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html
https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence
https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/
see our stuff:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=103094318
1. As a community of people, we are not here as our company or
institution, we are independent persons (individuals).
Individuals familiar with or employed by commercial Fineract based
Solution Providers, are very welcome to discuss that solution here,
especially IF it includes ways in which ideas, requirements, and code
can be implemented and contributed back to the community. Apache is
non-commercial.
Similarly, solutions that connect to Fineract are welcome to help
document and improve APIs, test scripts, and the like, to enable good
system boundaries.
2. We abide by norms of good behavior and assume good intent. Positive
discussion usually starts with identifying the contribution you - as
an individual - want to make.
It helps immensely to follow norms of a single topic in a threaded
email conversation. I.e.Please do not respond to an email w a
different topic.
3. We strive to have all our discussions on this public listserv.
This may strike some as 'old fashioned' but it is there for good
reasons. If you use outside tools (chats, gitter, slack, etc), those
conversations should be brought back to list, or "they didn't happen".
It's ok to share via tickets as well, but you get more mileage having
a discussion.
4. The dev list is public and we allow all in.
Over time, positive contributions by participants on list, in content
for wiki, in tickets, and in code, earn recognition and merit
consideration for additional responsibilities to and on behalf of the
project.
James Dailey
On behalf of the Fineract PMC
RE: Clarifying Norms on Fineract
Posted by za...@intrasofttechnologies.com.
Thanks James for these clarifications.
I also thought it was time someone clarifies why we have the community lists and bring back the atmosphere we have all had before.
I have been seeing some discussions going on through the dev lists which I honestly don’t find healthy for the community.
Best Regards;
*******
Zayyad A. Said | Chairman & C.E.O
Cell No.: +254 716 615274 | Skype: zsaid2011
Email: <ma...@intrasofttechnologies.com> zayyad@intrasofttechnologies.com
Schedule Meetings: <https://calendly.com/zayyadsaid> https://calendly.com/zayyadsaid
-----Original Message-----
From: James Dailey <ja...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 7:24 AM
To: Dev <de...@fineract.apache.org>
Subject: Clarifying Norms on Fineract
All -
Apache Fineract operates under the rules established by the Apache Software Foundation.
<https://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html> https://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html
<https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence> https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence
<https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/> https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/
see our stuff:
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=103094318> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=103094318
1. As a community of people, we are not here as our company or institution, we are independent persons (individuals).
Individuals familiar with or employed by commercial Fineract based Solution Providers, are very welcome to discuss that solution here, especially IF it includes ways in which ideas, requirements, and code can be implemented and contributed back to the community. Apache is non-commercial.
Similarly, solutions that connect to Fineract are welcome to help document and improve APIs, test scripts, and the like, to enable good system boundaries.
2. We abide by norms of good behavior and assume good intent. Positive discussion usually starts with identifying the contribution you - as an individual - want to make.
It helps immensely to follow norms of a single topic in a threaded email conversation. I.e.Please do not respond to an email w a different topic.
3. We strive to have all our discussions on this public listserv.
This may strike some as 'old fashioned' but it is there for good reasons. If you use outside tools (chats, gitter, slack, etc), those conversations should be brought back to list, or "they didn't happen".
It's ok to share via tickets as well, but you get more mileage having a discussion.
4. The dev list is public and we allow all in.
Over time, positive contributions by participants on list, in content for wiki, in tickets, and in code, earn recognition and merit consideration for additional responsibilities to and on behalf of the project.
James Dailey
On behalf of the Fineract PMC
Re: Clarifying Norms on Fineract
Posted by Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org>.
Rich thanks for your kindness and realisation.
>>Javier! Let’s start focusing on depth. Collecting the data only to defend
calling “others”, childish, little is a graceless effort.
a. Lists are on multiple topics- Diabetes, 3 questions that can get you
laid tonight, how to burn fat (stop posting baseless content)
b. For "little show"*, *in your reference data, trade shows come up.
This is absurd. Relevance & context are both missing in your citation. See
screenshots.
It is clear that using only two variables (Keyword search, & term
frequency) in a text based analysis is a limiting mechanism to gain
qualified information. This type of reasoning is an example of a cause of
misinformation.
c. Building financial technology is based on observing logical truth
statements.
>> Javier! Let's try to understand context when using an “adjective”. E.g:
“Diversity” is used millions of times over the Internet. Now, the statement
- “*planet earth needs to protect and nurture bio-diversity*”, backed with
research almost always establishes context. This is the most important
norm.
Not a single individual has given you their consent to refer to them
“childish" or "little". The circumstances when you have used such
adjectives is a community discussion over self approvals.
Justifying use of these adjectives for fellow community members can
only cause hurt, further exclusion, reducing diversity in this community.
>> Tying these words to what you think you truly own e.g DNA, microbiome or
neurological and cognitive patterns is perhaps fine. That’s your right. You
can call "Self" anything - childish,or little.
On the other hand, expressions using such adjectives for fellow beings(even
if they may seem to have opposing views) is NOT an acceptable norm. That
simply demonstrates a lack of empathy & openness.
>> There are not enough merits on this planet to be able to qualify for
calling fellow members -“childish” and their effort “little”.
You & 'Me' are just insignificant biological beings with an evolving
conscious experience, and such a vast infinite universe inside and out.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 4:53 PM Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/10/15 12:08:26, Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org> wrote:
> > I will refer to more words - “little” show, “childish”, “acquiesce” used
> > for the community members, “Man beyond reproach” “Men of action”
> “princess
> > birdie”.
>
> It's probably worth clarifying, for those who are confused, that I quoted
> the movie "Princess Bride" in an off-list email to Ankit.
>
> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/ <-- for those who have not seen it.
>
> I in no way intended to imply that Ankit was either a princess, a bride,
> or a birdie, and I apologize for any confusion this caused.
>
> For whatever it's worth, I do agree that using colloquial language, slang,
> quotes, and other similar turns of phrase can indeed be confusing in a
> cross-country, cross-culture mailing list, and we could all stand to be
> more careful about that.
>
--
Ankit
Managing Partner
Muellners ApS, Denmark
Impressum- Muellners® Inc; Copenhagen, Denmark CVR: 41548304;
New Delhi, India CIN: U72900DL2019PTC344870; Foundation EU CVR:41008407
This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: Clarifying Norms on Fineract
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@apache.org>.
On 2021/10/15 12:08:26, Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org> wrote:
> I will refer to more words - “little” show, “childish”, “acquiesce” used
> for the community members, “Man beyond reproach” “Men of action” “princess
> birdie”.
It's probably worth clarifying, for those who are confused, that I quoted the movie "Princess Bride" in an off-list email to Ankit.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/ <-- for those who have not seen it.
I in no way intended to imply that Ankit was either a princess, a bride, or a birdie, and I apologize for any confusion this caused.
For whatever it's worth, I do agree that using colloquial language, slang, quotes, and other similar turns of phrase can indeed be confusing in a cross-country, cross-culture mailing list, and we could all stand to be more careful about that.
Re: Clarifying Norms on Fineract
Posted by Javier Borkenztain <ja...@fiter.io>.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 9:08 AM, Muellners ApS < ankit@muellners.org > wrote:
>
> I will refer to more words - “little” show, “childish”, “acquiesce” used
> for the community members, “Man beyond reproach” “Men of action” “princess
> birdie”. The last one is funny.
>
>
Childish has been used over a thousand times in Apache Lists: https://markmail.org/search/?q=childish
Little Show has been used tens of thousands of times: https://markmail.org/search/?q=little+show
Acquiesce hundreds: https://markmail.org/search/?q=acquiesce
And Princess Birdie, it's only in your imagination, this word was only mentioned by you on
*all the lists* in this thread: https://markmail.org/search/?q=%22princess+birdie%22.
Why this is important? because this shows your way of action, you bombard the list with emails out of context and full of half-truths without knowing how things work around here.
>
> These are phrases used by select individuals from this community in
> different dehumanising context.
>
>
>
> Do we moderate/censor such comments? Is there a way ASF code of conduct
> violation throws such members out of this community. What is the role of
> Apache Code of Conduct & Diversity statement here?
>
>
The fact that you continue to bombarding this list shows that there is no moderation happening here.
>
>
>
> Gerald!
>
>
>
> In responsible communities, choice of “adjective” on a public forum on the
> Internet has to have a context ready relationship especially if a
> conversation includes sensitive content and when individuals do not have a
> familiar relationship of endearment.
>
> This is one of the primary factor of misinformation age of today - Bad
> choice of words to represent people and situation.
>
>
>
> It is always great not to use words that have both pejorative and non
> pejorative meanings to reduce ambiguity in what you are trying to convey
> or else you continue to have information leakage. If not done, this most
> likely increases cognitive load as you had to spend more time on the same
> information transfer.
>
>
>
> Most importantly when it is a bilateral or a multi lateral communication &
> participants are distributed in different geographies/cultural norms on
> this planet, you must be more sensitive and address issues with qualified
> statements/words/adjectives. This is a multi lingual planet.
>
>
>
> Now, thanks for the example. It’s one thing to use an adjective for
> yourself, you are free to call/say whatever you wish to say for yourself
> and it is entirely another element to specify an adjective for a fellow
> human being or a community.
>
>
>
> Perhaps a more respectful and inclusive approach is to discard a norm of
> using an adjective or use it but almost always cite it with data as you
> have done, and as what Kevin did later after his utterance.
>
>
>
> Capacity for Cognitive load does not get reduced by “lurking”, perhaps
> gets overloaded in absence of more qualified information relay. You have
> increased variable permutations of a multilateral communication scenario.
> But it’s your choice.
>
>
>
> Thanks wish you health & best regards!
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 12.56, Gerald O'Sullivan < osullivan. gerald@ gmail.
> com ( osullivan.gerald@gmail.com ) > wrote:
>
>
>> Dear Friends and Colleagues
>>
>>
>> I am a long-time lurker on this forum.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, I lurk. I read the emails but I don't respond. Until now.
>>
>>
>>
>> I use the work "lurk" deliberately, not in the dictionary sense of the
>> word, but in the informal sense defined here: https:/ / www. urbandictionary.
>> com/ define. php?term=lurk (
>> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lurk ). In particular, the
>> second definition applies to me:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> To read without commenting or contributing, therefore effectively
>>> invisible to the rest of the group or community. Generally recommended for
>>> joining any forum so that you can observe rules, attitudes and prominent
>>> personalities without jumping in (
>>> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jumping%20in ) and breaking
>>> a rule, making an ass of yourself, or asking a question about something
>>> obvious that you would have learned for yourself if you’d paid attention
>>> in the first place.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In particular, I recognise that because I do not contribute code, or
>> documentation, I refrain from making unwanted contributions. I do not
>> consume bandwidth or create unnecessary cognitive load.
>>
>>
>>
>> The word "lurk" has formal and informal definitions. In the world of
>> software development it has a non-pejorative meaning.
>>
>>
>>
>> I will now return to lurking. Please continue the good work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Gerald
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 12:20, Muellners ApS < ankit@ muellners. org (
>> ankit@muellners.org ) > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 19.59, Kevin A. McGrail < kmcgrail@ apache. org (
>>> kmcgrail@apache.org ) > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 10:27 Muellners ApS < ankit@ muellners. org (
>>>> ankit@muellners.org ) > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Kevin!
>>>>> It's sad that you use words like "lurking" and "free",
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lurking on mailing lists is a term of art. It means to read more and post
>>>> less.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Definition from Oxford Languages;
>>>
>>> lurking
>>>
>>> /ˈləːkɪŋ/
>>>
>>> Learn to pronounce
>>>
>>> (
>>> https://www.google.dk/search?client=safari&hl=en-dk&q=how+to+pronounce+lurking&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRoyS3w8sc9YSmDSWtOXmPU4uINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLmYglJLcoV4pbi5GLPKS3KzsxLt2JRYkrN41nEKpGRX65Qkq9QANSSD9STqgBVAQDXsLVpWQAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=gb&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji_66EvsrzAhUMjosKHYcWB4oQ3eEDegQIBBAZ
>>> )
>>>
>>>
>>> adjective
>>>
>>> adjective : *lurking*
>>>
>>> *
>>> remaining hidden so as to wait in ambush.
>>>
>>> "the trumpet fish is a lurking predator"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>> (of an unpleasant quality) present in a latent or barely discernible
>>> state, although still presenting a threat.
>>>
>>> "he lives with a lurking fear of exposure as a fraud"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> >>>>Why would you use this adjective for a fellow community member? Do you
>>> hold such feelings of threat and insecurity? Stop using wrong "adjectives"
>>> for your fellow beings. Perceiving threats is the first cause of less
>>> openness. How will you listen to newer ideas if you limit this human
>>> communication with wrong adjectives & then establish them as norms? See if
>>> you can be thoughtful.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Freemail is a term of art as well for services like Yahoo, Gmail, etc that
>>>> provide mail services at no charge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> >>>>What to say to you on this! focus please. I am not interested in
>>> wasting this community's time about freemail or such statements.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is clear to me that we should of course create a healthy balance b/w
>>> “for profits” and “non for profits” to avoid such distortion of human
>>> values which was visible during this Apache Con & in Board Reports.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Community events such as what happened in Afghanistan are missing, young
>>> talents got pushed to late night slots without wondering how power and
>>> internet works in Cameroon, GSoC interns are out of slot, contributors
>>> from different companies working hard on Fineract solutions from several
>>> parts of world are missing, not a single major FI that consumes the
>>> project IP has a keynote, false representation of a complete version of
>>> project CN have been running in Board reports and elsewhere until the Con.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What is required are more visible inclusion & diversity principles,
>>> definitely not an outcome with a single "for profit" company & self
>>> approvals in return for a meagre pocket change calling it "sponsorship".
>>> That's not the way a non-profit should behave. That's not the open source
>>> philosophy. I am seriously appalled by this sad demonstration of
>>> "diversity".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The current processes & norms have failed to respond to the needs for
>>> diversity and inclusion in real time. You are applying centralisation to a
>>> decentralised community of developers. Right now the governance and norms
>>> are selective to exploit IP generated by distributed developers without
>>> ever incentivizing them.
>>>
>>> A contrary example is imagine ASF whose public assets are distributed
>>> amongst its contributors, incentivizing each contribution to the project
>>> with money.
>>>
>>> In 2021, humans have a technology that can do that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *"No, We do not make blanket rules for one off problems."*
>>>
>>> Let's use a better word not one off "problem". This is a systematic event.
>>> Problems are climate change, hunger, food crisis, underbanked. By calling
>>> norms discussion as a problem, you are demonstrating a lack of willingness
>>> to change.
>>>
>>> This is a financial technology project that affects the lives of end
>>> clients and its product lifecycle management should not be exclusion
>>> oriented. (remember the vision is financial inclusion).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Figuring out begins with realising that we were on the wrong track.
>>>
>>> >>Your and your colleagues and actions are clearly not those of an
>>> individual but an organization with differing goals and objectives from
>>> this foundation which you continue to post about on our forums.
>>>
>>> *The context is not non congruence b/w two Foundations, and in my opinion,
>>> you are not qualified to state this about an outside legal entity.
>>> Meritocracy perhaps gives you meaning to propose and move ideas on this
>>> list, it does not allow you to malign other philanthropic activities
>>> happening elsewhere. And if the objective is to shield bad practices &
>>> behaviour of "for profits" within the ASF ecosystem, it helps to stop such
>>> reasoning.*
>>>
>>> *Public information from another Non for profit is being shared here by
>>> individual contributors affiliated to Muellners Foundation. Of course the
>>> Foundation which is the source of credible information is going to get
>>> cited.* *That's basic internet literacy to cite things.* *"yours" and
>>> "ours" is a construct that you have created. It really helps if you
>>> establish such statements with data not perception. Try to bridge
>>> differences instead of creating more.* **
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you need my help, I can talk but see Kevin use data, public facing
>>> records, meaningful information, & context not wrong adjectives. You are
>>> demonstrating lack of understanding, & empathy with *highly* *speculative*
>>> statements. That's just surface analytics. It has brought you to a weak
>>> conclusion that you have to resort to a poor use of human communication of
>>> language. No human has such a right. Read very carefully what is going on.
>>> Not a single time, MF colleagues have named or shamed an individual. The
>>> process and concepts behind human actions are being discussed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Have a good one! 😤
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards, KAM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ankit
>>> Managing Partner
>>> Muellners Inc
>>>
>>> This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy.
>>> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents
>>> may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
>>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
>>> this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
>>> the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
>>> attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
>>> of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
>>> prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
>>> monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
>>> compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
>>> are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
>>> intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are
>>> deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gerald O'Sullivan
>> Solution Architect
>> Cellphone: +27 82 412 9962
>>
>>
>
> --
> Ankit
> Managing Partner
> Muellners Inc
>
> This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy.
> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents
> may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
> this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
> the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
> attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
> of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
> prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
> monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
> compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
> are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
> intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are
> deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
>
Re: Clarifying Norms on Fineract
Posted by Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org>.
I will refer to more words - “little” show, “childish”, “acquiesce” used
for the community members, “Man beyond reproach” “Men of action” “princess
birdie”. The last one is funny. These are phrases used by select
individuals from this community in different dehumanising context.
Do we moderate/censor such comments? Is there a way ASF code of conduct
violation throws such members out of this community. What is the role of
Apache Code of Conduct & Diversity statement here?
Gerald!
In responsible communities, choice of “adjective” on a public forum on the
Internet has to have a context ready relationship especially if a
conversation includes sensitive content and when individuals do not have a
familiar relationship of endearment.
This is one of the primary factor of misinformation age of today - Bad
choice of words to represent people and situation.
It is always great not to use words that have both pejorative and non
pejorative meanings to reduce ambiguity in what you are trying to convey or
else you continue to have information leakage. If not done, this most
likely increases cognitive load as you had to spend more time on the same
information transfer.
Most importantly when it is a bilateral or a multi lateral communication &
participants are distributed in different geographies/cultural norms on
this planet, you must be more sensitive and address issues with qualified
statements/words/adjectives. This is a multi lingual planet.
Now, thanks for the example. It’s one thing to use an adjective for
yourself, you are free to call/say whatever you wish to say for yourself
and it is entirely another element to specify an adjective for a fellow
human being or a community.
Perhaps a more respectful and inclusive approach is to discard a norm of
using an adjective or use it but almost always cite it with data as you
have done, and as what Kevin did later after his utterance.
Capacity for Cognitive load does not get reduced by “lurking”, perhaps gets
overloaded in absence of more qualified information relay. You have
increased variable permutations of a multilateral communication scenario.
But it’s your choice.
Thanks wish you health & best regards!
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 12.56, Gerald O'Sullivan <os...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Dear Friends and Colleagues
>
> I am a long-time lurker on this forum.
>
> Yes, I lurk. I read the emails but I don't respond. Until now.
>
> I use the work "lurk" deliberately, not in the dictionary sense of the
> word, but in the informal sense defined here:
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lurk. In particular, the
> second definition applies to me:
>
> To read without commenting or contributing, therefore effectively
> invisible to the rest of the group or community. Generally recommended for
> joining any forum so that you can observe rules, attitudes and prominent
> personalities without jumping in
> <https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jumping%20in> and
> breaking a rule, making an ass of yourself, or asking a question about
> something obvious that you would have learned for yourself if you’d paid
> attention in the first place.
>
>
> In particular, I recognise that because I do not contribute code, or
> documentation, I refrain from making unwanted contributions. I do not
> consume bandwidth or create unnecessary cognitive load.
>
> The word "lurk" has formal and informal definitions. In the world of
> software development it has a non-pejorative meaning.
>
> I will now return to lurking. Please continue the good work.
>
> Kind regards
> Gerald
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 12:20, Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 19.59, Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 10:27 Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kevin!
>>>> It's sad that you use words like "lurking" and "free",
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lurking on mailing lists is a term of art. It means to read more and
>>> post less.
>>>
>>
>> Definition from Oxford Languages;
>> lurking
>> /ˈləːkɪŋ/
>> Learn to pronounce
>>
>> <https://www.google.dk/search?client=safari&hl=en-dk&q=how+to+pronounce+lurking&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRoyS3w8sc9YSmDSWtOXmPU4uINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLmYglJLcoV4pbi5GLPKS3KzsxLt2JRYkrN41nEKpGRX65Qkq9QANSSD9STqgBVAQDXsLVpWQAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=gb&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji_66EvsrzAhUMjosKHYcWB4oQ3eEDegQIBBAZ>
>> *adjective*
>> adjective: *lurking*
>>
>> 1. remaining hidden so as to wait in ambush.
>> "the trumpet fish is a lurking predator"
>> - (of an unpleasant quality) present in a latent or barely
>> discernible state, although still presenting a threat.
>> "he lives with a lurking fear of exposure as a fraud"
>>
>>
>> >>>>Why would you use this adjective for a fellow community member? Do
>> you hold such feelings of threat and insecurity? Stop using wrong
>> "adjectives" for your fellow beings. Perceiving threats is the first cause
>> of less openness. How will you listen to newer ideas if you limit this
>> human communication with wrong adjectives & then establish them as norms?
>> See if you can be thoughtful.
>>
>>>
>>> Freemail is a term of art as well for services like Yahoo, Gmail, etc
>>> that provide mail services at no charge.
>>>
>> >>>>What to say to you on this! focus please. I am not interested in
>> wasting this community's time about freemail or such statements.
>>
>> It is clear to me that we should of course create a healthy balance b/w
>> “for profits” and “non for profits” to avoid such distortion of human
>> values which was visible during this Apache Con & in Board Reports.
>>
>> Community events such as what happened in Afghanistan are missing, young
>> talents got pushed to late night slots without wondering how power and
>> internet works in Cameroon, GSoC interns are out of slot, contributors from
>> different companies working hard on Fineract solutions from several parts
>> of world are missing, not a single major FI that consumes the project IP
>> has a keynote, false representation of a complete version of project CN
>> have been running in Board reports and elsewhere until the Con.
>>
>> What is required are more visible inclusion & diversity principles,
>> definitely not an outcome with a single "for profit" company & self
>> approvals in return for a meagre pocket change calling it "sponsorship".
>> That's not the way a non-profit should behave. That's not the open source
>> philosophy. I am seriously appalled by this sad demonstration of
>> "diversity".
>>
>> The current processes & norms have failed to respond to the needs for
>> diversity and inclusion in real time. You are applying centralisation to a
>> decentralised community of developers. Right now the governance and norms
>> are selective to exploit IP generated by distributed developers without
>> ever incentivizing them.
>> A contrary example is imagine ASF whose public assets are distributed
>> amongst its contributors, incentivizing each contribution to the project
>> with money.
>> In 2021, humans have a technology that can do that.
>>
>> *"No, We do not make blanket rules for one off problems."*
>> Let's use a better word not one off "problem". This is a
>> systematic event. Problems are climate change, hunger, food crisis,
>> underbanked. By calling norms discussion as a problem, you are
>> demonstrating a lack of willingness to change.
>> This is a financial technology project that affects the lives of end
>> clients and its product lifecycle management should not be exclusion
>> oriented. (remember the vision is financial inclusion).
>>
>> Figuring out begins with realising that we were on the wrong track.
>> >>Your and your colleagues and actions are clearly not those of an
>> individual but an organization with differing goals and objectives from
>> this foundation which you continue to post about on our forums.
>> *The context is not non congruence b/w two Foundations, and in my
>> opinion, you are not qualified to state this about an outside legal entity.
>> Meritocracy perhaps gives you meaning to propose and move ideas on this
>> list, it does not allow you to malign other philanthropic activities
>> happening elsewhere. And if the objective is to shield bad practices &
>> behaviour of "for profits" within the ASF ecosystem, it helps to stop such
>> reasoning.*
>> *Public information from another Non for profit is being shared here by
>> individual contributors affiliated to Muellners Foundation. Of course the
>> Foundation which is the source of credible information is going to get
>> cited. **That's basic internet literacy to cite things. **"yours" and
>> "ours" is a construct that you have created. It really helps if you
>> establish such statements with data not perception. Try to bridge
>> differences instead of creating more. *
>>
>> If you need my help, I can talk but see Kevin use data, public facing
>> records, meaningful information, & context not wrong adjectives. You are
>> demonstrating lack of understanding, & empathy with *highly*
>> *speculative* statements. That's just surface analytics. It has brought
>> you to a weak conclusion that you have to resort to a poor use of human
>> communication of language. No human has such a right. Read very carefully
>> what is going on. Not a single time, MF colleagues have named or shamed an
>> individual. The process and concepts behind human actions are being
>> discussed.
>>
>> Have a good one! 😤
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Regards, KAM
>>>
>>>> --
>> Ankit
>> Managing Partner
>> Muellners Inc
>>
>> This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy.
>> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents
>> may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
>> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
>> this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
>> the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
>> attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
>> of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
>> prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
>> monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
>> compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
>> are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
>> intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
>> to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
>>
>
>
> --
> Gerald O'Sullivan
> Solution Architect
> Cellphone: +27 82 412 9962
>
--
Ankit
Managing Partner
Muellners Inc
This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: Clarifying Norms on Fineract
Posted by Gerald O'Sullivan <os...@gmail.com>.
Dear Friends and Colleagues
I am a long-time lurker on this forum.
Yes, I lurk. I read the emails but I don't respond. Until now.
I use the work "lurk" deliberately, not in the dictionary sense of the
word, but in the informal sense defined here:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lurk. In particular, the
second definition applies to me:
To read without commenting or contributing, therefore effectively invisible
to the rest of the group or community. Generally recommended for joining
any forum so that you can observe rules, attitudes and prominent
personalities without jumping in
<https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jumping%20in> and breaking
a rule, making an ass of yourself, or asking a question about something
obvious that you would have learned for yourself if you’d paid attention in
the first place.
In particular, I recognise that because I do not contribute code, or
documentation, I refrain from making unwanted contributions. I do not
consume bandwidth or create unnecessary cognitive load.
The word "lurk" has formal and informal definitions. In the world of
software development it has a non-pejorative meaning.
I will now return to lurking. Please continue the good work.
Kind regards
Gerald
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 at 12:20, Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 19.59, Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 10:27 Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin!
>>> It's sad that you use words like "lurking" and "free",
>>>
>>
>> Lurking on mailing lists is a term of art. It means to read more and
>> post less.
>>
>
> Definition from Oxford Languages;
> lurking
> /ˈləːkɪŋ/
> Learn to pronounce
>
> <https://www.google.dk/search?client=safari&hl=en-dk&q=how+to+pronounce+lurking&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRoyS3w8sc9YSmDSWtOXmPU4uINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLmYglJLcoV4pbi5GLPKS3KzsxLt2JRYkrN41nEKpGRX65Qkq9QANSSD9STqgBVAQDXsLVpWQAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=gb&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji_66EvsrzAhUMjosKHYcWB4oQ3eEDegQIBBAZ>
> *adjective*
> adjective: *lurking*
>
> 1. remaining hidden so as to wait in ambush.
> "the trumpet fish is a lurking predator"
> - (of an unpleasant quality) present in a latent or barely discernible
> state, although still presenting a threat.
> "he lives with a lurking fear of exposure as a fraud"
>
>
> >>>>Why would you use this adjective for a fellow community member? Do you
> hold such feelings of threat and insecurity? Stop using wrong "adjectives"
> for your fellow beings. Perceiving threats is the first cause of less
> openness. How will you listen to newer ideas if you limit this human
> communication with wrong adjectives & then establish them as norms? See if
> you can be thoughtful.
>
>>
>> Freemail is a term of art as well for services like Yahoo, Gmail, etc
>> that provide mail services at no charge.
>>
> >>>>What to say to you on this! focus please. I am not interested in
> wasting this community's time about freemail or such statements.
>
> It is clear to me that we should of course create a healthy balance b/w
> “for profits” and “non for profits” to avoid such distortion of human
> values which was visible during this Apache Con & in Board Reports.
>
> Community events such as what happened in Afghanistan are missing, young
> talents got pushed to late night slots without wondering how power and
> internet works in Cameroon, GSoC interns are out of slot, contributors from
> different companies working hard on Fineract solutions from several parts
> of world are missing, not a single major FI that consumes the project IP
> has a keynote, false representation of a complete version of project CN
> have been running in Board reports and elsewhere until the Con.
>
> What is required are more visible inclusion & diversity principles,
> definitely not an outcome with a single "for profit" company & self
> approvals in return for a meagre pocket change calling it "sponsorship".
> That's not the way a non-profit should behave. That's not the open source
> philosophy. I am seriously appalled by this sad demonstration of
> "diversity".
>
> The current processes & norms have failed to respond to the needs for
> diversity and inclusion in real time. You are applying centralisation to a
> decentralised community of developers. Right now the governance and norms
> are selective to exploit IP generated by distributed developers without
> ever incentivizing them.
> A contrary example is imagine ASF whose public assets are distributed
> amongst its contributors, incentivizing each contribution to the project
> with money.
> In 2021, humans have a technology that can do that.
>
> *"No, We do not make blanket rules for one off problems."*
> Let's use a better word not one off "problem". This is a systematic event.
> Problems are climate change, hunger, food crisis, underbanked. By calling
> norms discussion as a problem, you are demonstrating a lack of willingness
> to change.
> This is a financial technology project that affects the lives of end
> clients and its product lifecycle management should not be exclusion
> oriented. (remember the vision is financial inclusion).
>
> Figuring out begins with realising that we were on the wrong track.
> >>Your and your colleagues and actions are clearly not those of an
> individual but an organization with differing goals and objectives from
> this foundation which you continue to post about on our forums.
> *The context is not non congruence b/w two Foundations, and in my opinion,
> you are not qualified to state this about an outside legal entity.
> Meritocracy perhaps gives you meaning to propose and move ideas on this
> list, it does not allow you to malign other philanthropic activities
> happening elsewhere. And if the objective is to shield bad practices &
> behaviour of "for profits" within the ASF ecosystem, it helps to stop such
> reasoning.*
> *Public information from another Non for profit is being shared here by
> individual contributors affiliated to Muellners Foundation. Of course the
> Foundation which is the source of credible information is going to get
> cited. **That's basic internet literacy to cite things. **"yours" and
> "ours" is a construct that you have created. It really helps if you
> establish such statements with data not perception. Try to bridge
> differences instead of creating more. *
>
> If you need my help, I can talk but see Kevin use data, public facing
> records, meaningful information, & context not wrong adjectives. You are
> demonstrating lack of understanding, & empathy with *highly* *speculative*
> statements. That's just surface analytics. It has brought you to a weak
> conclusion that you have to resort to a poor use of human communication of
> language. No human has such a right. Read very carefully what is going on.
> Not a single time, MF colleagues have named or shamed an individual. The
> process and concepts behind human actions are being discussed.
>
> Have a good one! 😤
>
>
>
>
>> Regards, KAM
>>
>>> --
> Ankit
> Managing Partner
> Muellners Inc
>
> This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy.
> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents
> may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
> this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
> the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
> attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
> of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
> prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
> monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
> compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
> are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
> intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
> to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
>
--
Gerald O'Sullivan
Solution Architect
Cellphone: +27 82 412 9962
Re: Clarifying Norms on Fineract
Posted by Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org>.
On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 19.59, Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 10:27 Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org> wrote:
>
>> Kevin!
>> It's sad that you use words like "lurking" and "free",
>>
>
> Lurking on mailing lists is a term of art. It means to read more and post
> less.
>
Definition from Oxford Languages;
lurking
/ˈləːkɪŋ/
Learn to pronounce
<https://www.google.dk/search?client=safari&hl=en-dk&q=how+to+pronounce+lurking&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRoyS3w8sc9YSmDSWtOXmPU4uINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLmYglJLcoV4pbi5GLPKS3KzsxLt2JRYkrN41nEKpGRX65Qkq9QANSSD9STqgBVAQDXsLVpWQAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=gb&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji_66EvsrzAhUMjosKHYcWB4oQ3eEDegQIBBAZ>
*adjective*
adjective: *lurking*
1. remaining hidden so as to wait in ambush.
"the trumpet fish is a lurking predator"
- (of an unpleasant quality) present in a latent or barely discernible
state, although still presenting a threat.
"he lives with a lurking fear of exposure as a fraud"
>>>>Why would you use this adjective for a fellow community member? Do you
hold such feelings of threat and insecurity? Stop using wrong "adjectives"
for your fellow beings. Perceiving threats is the first cause of less
openness. How will you listen to newer ideas if you limit this human
communication with wrong adjectives & then establish them as norms? See if
you can be thoughtful.
>
> Freemail is a term of art as well for services like Yahoo, Gmail, etc that
> provide mail services at no charge.
>
>>>>What to say to you on this! focus please. I am not interested in
wasting this community's time about freemail or such statements.
It is clear to me that we should of course create a healthy balance b/w
“for profits” and “non for profits” to avoid such distortion of human
values which was visible during this Apache Con & in Board Reports.
Community events such as what happened in Afghanistan are missing, young
talents got pushed to late night slots without wondering how power and
internet works in Cameroon, GSoC interns are out of slot, contributors from
different companies working hard on Fineract solutions from several parts
of world are missing, not a single major FI that consumes the project IP
has a keynote, false representation of a complete version of project CN
have been running in Board reports and elsewhere until the Con.
What is required are more visible inclusion & diversity principles,
definitely not an outcome with a single "for profit" company & self
approvals in return for a meagre pocket change calling it "sponsorship".
That's not the way a non-profit should behave. That's not the open source
philosophy. I am seriously appalled by this sad demonstration of
"diversity".
The current processes & norms have failed to respond to the needs for
diversity and inclusion in real time. You are applying centralisation to a
decentralised community of developers. Right now the governance and norms
are selective to exploit IP generated by distributed developers without
ever incentivizing them.
A contrary example is imagine ASF whose public assets are distributed
amongst its contributors, incentivizing each contribution to the project
with money.
In 2021, humans have a technology that can do that.
*"No, We do not make blanket rules for one off problems."*
Let's use a better word not one off "problem". This is a systematic event.
Problems are climate change, hunger, food crisis, underbanked. By calling
norms discussion as a problem, you are demonstrating a lack of willingness
to change.
This is a financial technology project that affects the lives of end
clients and its product lifecycle management should not be exclusion
oriented. (remember the vision is financial inclusion).
Figuring out begins with realising that we were on the wrong track.
>>Your and your colleagues and actions are clearly not those of an
individual but an organization with differing goals and objectives from
this foundation which you continue to post about on our forums.
*The context is not non congruence b/w two Foundations, and in my opinion,
you are not qualified to state this about an outside legal entity.
Meritocracy perhaps gives you meaning to propose and move ideas on this
list, it does not allow you to malign other philanthropic activities
happening elsewhere. And if the objective is to shield bad practices &
behaviour of "for profits" within the ASF ecosystem, it helps to stop such
reasoning.*
*Public information from another Non for profit is being shared here by
individual contributors affiliated to Muellners Foundation. Of course the
Foundation which is the source of credible information is going to get
cited. **That's basic internet literacy to cite things. **"yours" and
"ours" is a construct that you have created. It really helps if you
establish such statements with data not perception. Try to bridge
differences instead of creating more. *
If you need my help, I can talk but see Kevin use data, public facing
records, meaningful information, & context not wrong adjectives. You are
demonstrating lack of understanding, & empathy with *highly* *speculative*
statements. That's just surface analytics. It has brought you to a weak
conclusion that you have to resort to a poor use of human communication of
language. No human has such a right. Read very carefully what is going on.
Not a single time, MF colleagues have named or shamed an individual. The
process and concepts behind human actions are being discussed.
Have a good one! 😤
> Regards, KAM
>
>> --
Ankit
Managing Partner
Muellners Inc
This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: Clarifying Norms on Fineract
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 10:27 Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org> wrote:
> Kevin!
> It's sad that you use words like "lurking" and "free",
>
Lurking on mailing lists is a term of art. It means to read more and post
less.
Freemail is a term of art as well for services like Yahoo, Gmail, etc that
provide mail services at no charge.
Regards, KAM
>
Re: Clarifying Norms on Fineract
Posted by James Dailey <ja...@gmail.com>.
The Apache Fineract PMC disagrees and disavows the contents of this
message. The PMC believes the email below to be based upon an unfounded and
uninformed set of beliefs. We have no further reply to this matter.
James Dailey on behalf of the PMC
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 7:27 AM Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org> wrote:
> Kevin!
> It's sad that you use words like "lurking" and "free", ridiculing fellow
> human beings with some sort of shortsightedness, and demonstrating a lack
> of empathy. Must it be a self defeating conscious experience?
>
> *Let me try again to discard your assumptions,& speculations once again. I
> have written in "Bold" what could be helpful to bring clarity.*
>
> *in the forthcoming messages:*
> * "We" - it means that I am representing the word "WE" with this community
> in the context to which a statement may be written.*
> *"I" - is me but not only me. This is quite abstract. Is it not? "*I" is
> clearly an individual contributor here just like you.
> *"MF"- Muellners Foundation*
> *"ASF" - Apache Software Foundation*
>
> You again speak without qualified data and your statements are nothing
> substantial but presumptive.
> 1. If you can operate at a detailed level of consciousness, then please
> scan this list, and also the code repo of github.com/apachefineract and
> see what & how MF is contributing PRs of features consistently for more
> than a year now. Look for more information. I have been personally
> observing and assisting this project's adoption, even before ASF incubated
> this. So "years" of lurking(why would you even use such adjectives cmon,
> such a shameful choice of words). ( ASSESS THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT
> CONTRIBUTION BUT BE RESPECTFUL. THIS IS NOT YOUR BACKYARD.)
>
> Let me return some *free* advice: "Please share qualified data. PERIOD.
>
> 2. MF cannot speak for the entire community. Neither can I. It is an
> outside organisation. These ASF rules don't bind MF members outside this
> list. Community members shall speak with their own voices. (ESTABLISH
> CLARITY OF ROLES OF STAKEHOLDERS HERE. )
>
> 3. Thanks and once again, please respond with qualified information, or
> else don't bother. What's the point otherwise? Nobody has time to
> discuss gossip & hearsay. (RESPOND OR SHARE DATA POINTS CITING ANY
> STATEMENT WITH ANY ADJECTIVE OR USE OF WORDS DEFINING SOMEONE ON THE LIST)
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 2:57 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 08:46 Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin, thanks for emailing me. I would like to state "we" here always
>>> mean community when I write these emails.
>>>
>>
>> And that right there is the crux of the issue.
>>
>> You don't speak for the community.
>>
>> Your organization does not speak for the community.
>>
>> Neither have earned the merit to do so.
>>
>> My advice to you: Get a freemail address, spend a few *years* lurking on
>> Apache lists to gain a better idea of how it works, work on small patches
>> to code/documentation, start building merit, and post about your
>> organization on its resources not ours.
>>
>> Regards, KAM
>>
>
>
> --
> Ankit
> Managing Partner
> Muellners ApS, Denmark
>
> Impressum- Muellners® Inc; Copenhagen, Denmark CVR: 41548304;
> New Delhi, India CIN: U72900DL2019PTC344870; Foundation EU CVR:41008407
>
> This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy.
> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents
> may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
> this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
> the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
> attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
> of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
> prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
> monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
> compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
> are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
> intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
> to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
>
Re: Clarifying Norms on Fineract
Posted by Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org>.
Kevin!
It's sad that you use words like "lurking" and "free", ridiculing fellow
human beings with some sort of shortsightedness, and demonstrating a lack
of empathy. Must it be a self defeating conscious experience?
*Let me try again to discard your assumptions,& speculations once again. I
have written in "Bold" what could be helpful to bring clarity.*
*in the forthcoming messages:*
* "We" - it means that I am representing the word "WE" with this community
in the context to which a statement may be written.*
*"I" - is me but not only me. This is quite abstract. Is it not? "*I" is
clearly an individual contributor here just like you.
*"MF"- Muellners Foundation*
*"ASF" - Apache Software Foundation*
You again speak without qualified data and your statements are nothing
substantial but presumptive.
1. If you can operate at a detailed level of consciousness, then please
scan this list, and also the code repo of github.com/apachefineract and see
what & how MF is contributing PRs of features consistently for more than a
year now. Look for more information. I have been personally observing and
assisting this project's adoption, even before ASF incubated this. So
"years" of lurking(why would you even use such adjectives cmon, such a
shameful choice of words). ( ASSESS THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT CONTRIBUTION
BUT BE RESPECTFUL. THIS IS NOT YOUR BACKYARD.)
Let me return some *free* advice: "Please share qualified data. PERIOD.
2. MF cannot speak for the entire community. Neither can I. It is an
outside organisation. These ASF rules don't bind MF members outside this
list. Community members shall speak with their own voices. (ESTABLISH
CLARITY OF ROLES OF STAKEHOLDERS HERE. )
3. Thanks and once again, please respond with qualified information, or
else don't bother. What's the point otherwise? Nobody has time to
discuss gossip & hearsay. (RESPOND OR SHARE DATA POINTS CITING ANY
STATEMENT WITH ANY ADJECTIVE OR USE OF WORDS DEFINING SOMEONE ON THE LIST)
Thanks
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 2:57 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 08:46 Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org> wrote:
>
>> Kevin, thanks for emailing me. I would like to state "we" here always
>> mean community when I write these emails.
>>
>
> And that right there is the crux of the issue.
>
> You don't speak for the community.
>
> Your organization does not speak for the community.
>
> Neither have earned the merit to do so.
>
> My advice to you: Get a freemail address, spend a few *years* lurking on
> Apache lists to gain a better idea of how it works, work on small patches
> to code/documentation, start building merit, and post about your
> organization on its resources not ours.
>
> Regards, KAM
>
--
Ankit
Managing Partner
Muellners ApS, Denmark
Impressum- Muellners® Inc; Copenhagen, Denmark CVR: 41548304;
New Delhi, India CIN: U72900DL2019PTC344870; Foundation EU CVR:41008407
This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: Clarifying Norms on Fineract
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 08:46 Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org> wrote:
> Kevin, thanks for emailing me. I would like to state "we" here always
> mean community when I write these emails.
>
And that right there is the crux of the issue.
You don't speak for the community.
Your organization does not speak for the community.
Neither have earned the merit to do so.
My advice to you: Get a freemail address, spend a few *years* lurking on
Apache lists to gain a better idea of how it works, work on small patches
to code/documentation, start building merit, and post about your
organization on its resources not ours.
Regards, KAM
Re: Clarifying Norms on Fineract
Posted by Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org>.
*Kevin, thanks for emailing me. I would like to state "we" here always
mean community when I write these emails. *
Ankit, your actions and / or the firm you represent show a consistent and
lengthy pattern where you do not seem to understand how The Apache Software
Foundation works.
*Wherever, you see mis understandings of how ASF works, please highlight,
back with a qualified data, report, or citable information.*
No, We do not make blanket rules for one off problems.
*Very good. At least we are on the same page that there is a problem here.
Would you like to address the problem and investigate more if similar
problems exist, in order to create blanket reforms for the overall process.*
We are a meritocracy and build consensus with those who have earned merit.
*True we are!*
Your and your colleagues and actions are clearly not those of an individual
but an organization with differing goals and objectives from this
foundation which you continue to post about on our forums.
*Clearly, Muellners Foundation & ASF are two independent entities with
their goals and objectives. I can only assure you that I am posting here as
what I am made aware as a human being with no inclination towards either of
these Foundations, though respecting the ASF guidelines for these
communications.*
I am formally stating my objection to your posts and actions. I am
formally recommending you and your organization for moderation.
*I welcome moderation. Please highlight the data behind your objection on
each of my posts or actions. *
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 2:32 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Ankit, your actions and / or the firm you represent show a consistent and
> lengthy pattern where you do not seem to understand how The Apache Software
> Foundation works.
>
> No, We do not make blanket rules for one off problems.
>
> We are a meritocracy and build consensus with those who have earned merit.
>
> Your and your colleagues and actions are clearly not those of an
> individual but an organization with differing goals and objectives from
> this foundation which you continue to post about on our forums.
>
> I am formally stating my objection to your posts and actions. I am
> formally recommending you and your organization for moderation.
>
> Regards, KAM
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 03:41 Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org> wrote:
>
>> Hey James,
>> Thanks for clarifying norms here:
>>
>> A. 1 & 2 is quite important.
>> Can I ask you or PMC (as you are the representative of PMC)...
>>
>
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 06.24, James Dailey <ja...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> All -
>>>
>>> Apache Fineract operates under the rules established by the Apache
>>> Software Foundation.
>>> https://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html
>>> https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence
>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/
>>> see our stuff:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=103094318
>>>
>>> 1. As a community of people, we are not here as our company or
>>> institution, we are independent persons (individuals).
>>>
>>> Individuals familiar with or employed by commercial Fineract based
>>> Solution Providers, are very welcome to discuss that solution here,
>>> especially IF it includes ways in which ideas, requirements, and code
>>> can be implemented and contributed back to the community. Apache is
>>> non-commercial.
>>>
>>> Similarly, solutions that connect to Fineract are welcome to help
>>> document and improve APIs, test scripts, and the like, to enable good
>>> system boundaries.
>>>
>>> 2. We abide by norms of good behavior and assume good intent. Positive
>>> discussion usually starts with identifying the contribution you - as
>>> an individual - want to make.
>>>
>>> It helps immensely to follow norms of a single topic in a threaded
>>> email conversation. I.e.Please do not respond to an email w a
>>> different topic.
>>>
>>> 3. We strive to have all our discussions on this public listserv.
>>> This may strike some as 'old fashioned' but it is there for good
>>> reasons. If you use outside tools (chats, gitter, slack, etc), those
>>> conversations should be brought back to list, or "they didn't happen".
>>> It's ok to share via tickets as well, but you get more mileage having
>>> a discussion.
>>>
>>> 4. The dev list is public and we allow all in.
>>> Over time, positive contributions by participants on list, in content
>>> for wiki, in tickets, and in code, earn recognition and merit
>>> consideration for additional responsibilities to and on behalf of the
>>> project.
>>>
>>> James Dailey
>>> On behalf of the Fineract PMC
>>>
>>
>>
--
Ankit
Managing Partner
Muellners ApS, Denmark
Impressum- Muellners® Inc; Copenhagen, Denmark CVR: 41548304;
New Delhi, India CIN: U72900DL2019PTC344870; Foundation EU CVR:41008407
This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: Clarifying Norms on Fineract
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
Ankit, your actions and / or the firm you represent show a consistent and
lengthy pattern where you do not seem to understand how The Apache Software
Foundation works.
No, We do not make blanket rules for one off problems.
We are a meritocracy and build consensus with those who have earned merit.
Your and your colleagues and actions are clearly not those of an individual
but an organization with differing goals and objectives from this
foundation which you continue to post about on our forums.
I am formally stating my objection to your posts and actions. I am
formally recommending you and your organization for moderation.
Regards, KAM
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 03:41 Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org> wrote:
> Hey James,
> Thanks for clarifying norms here:
>
> A. 1 & 2 is quite important.
> Can I ask you or PMC (as you are the representative of PMC)...
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 06.24, James Dailey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All -
>>
>> Apache Fineract operates under the rules established by the Apache
>> Software Foundation.
>> https://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html
>> https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence
>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/
>> see our stuff:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=103094318
>>
>> 1. As a community of people, we are not here as our company or
>> institution, we are independent persons (individuals).
>>
>> Individuals familiar with or employed by commercial Fineract based
>> Solution Providers, are very welcome to discuss that solution here,
>> especially IF it includes ways in which ideas, requirements, and code
>> can be implemented and contributed back to the community. Apache is
>> non-commercial.
>>
>> Similarly, solutions that connect to Fineract are welcome to help
>> document and improve APIs, test scripts, and the like, to enable good
>> system boundaries.
>>
>> 2. We abide by norms of good behavior and assume good intent. Positive
>> discussion usually starts with identifying the contribution you - as
>> an individual - want to make.
>>
>> It helps immensely to follow norms of a single topic in a threaded
>> email conversation. I.e.Please do not respond to an email w a
>> different topic.
>>
>> 3. We strive to have all our discussions on this public listserv.
>> This may strike some as 'old fashioned' but it is there for good
>> reasons. If you use outside tools (chats, gitter, slack, etc), those
>> conversations should be brought back to list, or "they didn't happen".
>> It's ok to share via tickets as well, but you get more mileage having
>> a discussion.
>>
>> 4. The dev list is public and we allow all in.
>> Over time, positive contributions by participants on list, in content
>> for wiki, in tickets, and in code, earn recognition and merit
>> consideration for additional responsibilities to and on behalf of the
>> project.
>>
>> James Dailey
>> On behalf of the Fineract PMC
>>
>
>
Re: Clarifying Norms on Fineract
Posted by Muellners ApS <an...@muellners.org>.
Hey James,
Thanks for clarifying norms here:
A. 1 & 2 is quite important.
Can I ask you or PMC (as you are the representative of PMC) to dis allow
“for profit” company to be ever mentioned on public facing records such as
Board Reports.
I am also asking here if it would be fair to exclude “non for profit” being
mentioned. At times, the open source communities worldwide work or organise
themselves in such a legal structure.
So, member is an individual, even though affiliated to a company.
But if say a member is an affiliate of say an international foundation such
as Gates Foundation, or of Muellners Foundation, they may be here only to
represent their Foundation’s non for profit cause with this project.
At times non for profit work is promoted & preserved by governments in line
with freedom of speech and assembly such as voluntary organisation, what
this may mean, is a collection of people may come across contributing to
this project.
I have noticed individual contributors adding in the Board report, the name
of their “for profit” company. I want to discontinue this here.
I have a clear understanding that non for profits should be allowed to be
mentioned as ASF also relies on grants, funds and resources from such
organised groups. Since “for profits” generate revenue, they should have a
different means of recording the members’ affiliation with those companies,
not the Board reports or this mailing list.
B. 3 is very very important and sometimes we have failed to bring many
important conversations on this list, causing hurt, exclusion and non
diversity in this community’s direction.
Thanks
On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 06.24, James Dailey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All -
>
> Apache Fineract operates under the rules established by the Apache
> Software Foundation.
> https://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html
> https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/
> see our stuff:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=103094318
>
> 1. As a community of people, we are not here as our company or
> institution, we are independent persons (individuals).
>
> Individuals familiar with or employed by commercial Fineract based
> Solution Providers, are very welcome to discuss that solution here,
> especially IF it includes ways in which ideas, requirements, and code
> can be implemented and contributed back to the community. Apache is
> non-commercial.
>
> Similarly, solutions that connect to Fineract are welcome to help
> document and improve APIs, test scripts, and the like, to enable good
> system boundaries.
>
> 2. We abide by norms of good behavior and assume good intent. Positive
> discussion usually starts with identifying the contribution you - as
> an individual - want to make.
>
> It helps immensely to follow norms of a single topic in a threaded
> email conversation. I.e.Please do not respond to an email w a
> different topic.
>
> 3. We strive to have all our discussions on this public listserv.
> This may strike some as 'old fashioned' but it is there for good
> reasons. If you use outside tools (chats, gitter, slack, etc), those
> conversations should be brought back to list, or "they didn't happen".
> It's ok to share via tickets as well, but you get more mileage having
> a discussion.
>
> 4. The dev list is public and we allow all in.
> Over time, positive contributions by participants on list, in content
> for wiki, in tickets, and in code, earn recognition and merit
> consideration for additional responsibilities to and on behalf of the
> project.
>
> James Dailey
> On behalf of the Fineract PMC
>
--
Ankit
Managing Partner
Muellners Inc
This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.