You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to apachecon-discuss@apache.org by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> on 2011/05/21 10:08:34 UTC
How public is public?
First: Thanks for everyone who helped to make Apache Retreat 2011
Knockree happen. (And apologies to everyone whose feathers I ruffled there.)
Quite a number of lengthy discussions were had at the Retreat about
future directions for events and about reaching out to a wider ecology.
AIUI a number of new more public mailing lists (but not - sadly -
peanuts@apache.org or flamewars@apache.org ;-).
I was wondering about pushing out some publicity about these new more
public lists but AFACT they aren't archived at mail-archives.apache.org
[1] or really covered on the dev subsite [2]. I'm also a little fuzzy
about which were created and what their intended role and audience is
for each.
I would also like to take the opportunity of a Berlin Buzzwords thread
over in Hadoopland to try to gently push a few people with links to
Germany and experience of organizing events over in this direction. This
would probably mean suggesting that some sort of conference thingy might
one day happen in Germany-ish if enough volunteers stepped up...
But I'm wary about dipping my toe into the concom waters without
sounding out comfort levels first...
Opinions?
Advice?
Robert
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/
[2] www.apache.org/dev
Re: How public is public?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
On 21/05/2011 09:08, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> Quite a number of lengthy discussions were had at the Retreat about
> future directions for events and about reaching out to a wider ecology.
> AIUI a number of new more public mailing lists
...
> But I'm wary about dipping my toe into the concom waters without
> sounding out comfort levels first...
>
> Opinions?
> Advice?
I'm afraid I am unable to express any opinions or advice relating to the
retreat discussions. I was unable to attend and at the time of writing
no proposals have been made on any list I read, which includes concom@a.o
In general though I am, and always have been, keen on concom operating
just like any other project - i.e. recognising merit (which ConCom
already does well) and public unless it is necessary to be private. For
this reason I'm pleased to see this list created, welcome you here and
encourage you to work with us to ensure the events you wish to engage
with are (wherever possible) supported.
Ross
Re: How public is public?
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <de...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 5/21/2011 3:08 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
> I was wondering about pushing out some publicity about these new more
> public lists but AFACT they aren't archived at mail-archives.apache.org
This should be publicized, first to ensure we have interested folks from
concom here to participate, and ***this list should be archived***.
Something should go up on http://www.apache.org/foundation/conferences.html
to indicate this list is here and the discussion is public to gather any
ideas, proposals and direction for launching an AC/EU '12, as well as
any smaller scale gatherings.
(It is under the general ASF-wide list category, which I wished would
sort to the top)...
See http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-apachecon-discuss/
Re: How public is public?
Posted by Alasdair Nottingham <no...@apache.org>.
On 23 May 2011 17:10, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 5/23/2011 10:59 AM, Nick Burch wrote:
>>
>>> Should we similarly open a public "Camp'ing" discussion list?
>>
>> I'm worried that we don't want to fragment things too much
>
> How many things do we do to plan/program/organize/partner?
>
> * Big ApacheCon (all PMC's 'invited', open to the public)
>
> * Small 1-x project focused events (partners in programming, usually)
> including community-wide meetups (open to the public)
>
> * ASF 'presence' at non-Apache events (usually a handful of people)
>
> * Retreats, including dev meets/hackathons (for 'contributors')
>
> * Apache BarCamp (public, often co-located, sometimes stand-alone)
>
> The third should be handled on the committee-internal list; only some
> of the events we are invited to would agree with public discussion of
> 'their event'. It could be treated in the same category as the second
> item, if a specific "foo Project Track" or "ASF Track" was agreed upon.
>
> The other four each seem like they deserve their own perpetual
> discussion list open to all contributors (eg; public). If the total
> volume of a specific list is expected to explode (planning ApacheCon
> Europe 2012, for example) then a sub-list could temporarily exist.
>
>
>
Hi,
It seems reasonable that the 3rd item would be discussed on the normal
concom mailing list. I would also suggest that the 2nd category
probably should be handled on the mailing lists for the projects
involved on a more ad-hoc basis.
That would leave ApacheCon/Retreats/BarCamps and it seems reasonable
to me to leave them on this list. I don't think it will be too hard to
separate the different mail threads out to work out what to ignore and
what to read. If at some point it does become difficult then we could
look at splitting the lists then. Although I feel it only fair to
report that my recollection of the discussions at the retreat was that
this list would focus on an ApacheCon Europe discussion for the time
being. That said since that didn't happen on a mailing list it didn't
happen.
Alasdair
--
Alasdair Nottingham
not@apache.org
Re: How public is public?
Posted by Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
<no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thats what I mean William :D, that is after the project group make a
> vote on their dev@, the PMC or PPMC and or Mentors in case of a
> podling is *encouraged* to share this on concom@ as a wider public
> channel.
>
> By *encouraged*, IDK whether it is better to make as *SHOULD* or a
> *MUST*, I mean do we want to *manage* and/or *control*/*organize* such
> event in a centralized way through ConCom or only it is preferable to
> make it go through ConCom. Thoughts ?
>
Currently, the events policy says that folk MUST let ConCom know about
their events if they want to use ASF trademarks. I'd suggest that this
includes any PMC organised events too.
That doesn't mean we have to be involved in the organisation of those
events, in any way :-) But we do need to know about them.
Noirin
Re: How public is public?
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
Thats what I mean William :D, that is after the project group make a
vote on their dev@, the PMC or PPMC and or Mentors in case of a
podling is *encouraged* to share this on concom@ as a wider public
channel.
By *encouraged*, IDK whether it is better to make as *SHOULD* or a
*MUST*, I mean do we want to *manage* and/or *control*/*organize* such
event in a centralized way through ConCom or only it is preferable to
make it go through ConCom. Thoughts ?
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:14 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<de...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 6/1/2011 10:28 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
>>
>> This is actually happens already, like the meet-up of OpenEJB(ers) in
>> France and Itally happened this and last year. It was all managed on
>> the dev@ of OpenEJB.
>
> +1 - however we strongly encourage these groups to communicate to the
> wider foundation as a whole.
>
> For example, TrafficServer decided to hold a f2f. When this was mentioned
> to ConCom, httpd/apr projects expressed interest and so this became a
> slightly larger event with further benefit to the ASF.
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
Author of (WebSphere Application Server Community Edition 2.0 User Guide)
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg247585.html
- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour
- Blog: http://tadabborat.blogspot.com
----
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein
"Writing clean code is what you must do in order to call yourself a
professional. There is no reasonable excuse for doing anything less
than your best."
- Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship
"Stay hungry, stay foolish."
- Steve Jobs
Re: How public is public?
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <de...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 6/1/2011 10:28 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
>
> This is actually happens already, like the meet-up of OpenEJB(ers) in
> France and Itally happened this and last year. It was all managed on
> the dev@ of OpenEJB.
+1 - however we strongly encourage these groups to communicate to the
wider foundation as a whole.
For example, TrafficServer decided to hold a f2f. When this was mentioned
to ConCom, httpd/apr projects expressed interest and so this became a
slightly larger event with further benefit to the ASF.
Re: How public is public?
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
Hi all...
Maybe it is too late to reply on this thread but I only got time now :).
Based on the for items William mentioned [1], the second point should
be started on the mailing list, most probably the dev@, of that
specific team/project and then it can be announced on this one.
For the rest of the points, it can be either proposed or announced on
this one, in that way we can use the already existing public mailing
lists.
This is actually happens already, like the meet-up of OpenEJB(ers) in
France and Itally happened this and last year. It was all managed on
the dev@ of OpenEJB.
[1] - http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-apachecon-discuss/201105.mbox/%3C4DDA870C.8030203@apache.org%3E
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 5/25/2011 12:19 PM, Nick Burch wrote:
>>
>> One question though is on approval for events - where would this happen? Especially for
>> small events that are seeking a budget, should that be on the open list or something like
>> concom@?
>
> Draft submitted via wiki, details drilled down on the open list. The voting
> itself and confidential concerns can obviously be taken up by concom-internal...
> but the results disclosed on the public list. Heck, votes could even be tallied
> on the wiki, sparing both lists +1 noise.
>
>> I'm torn here, I'm not sure about doing that on an open list (in the way that
>> lots of PMCs do committer votes in private). However, most proposals change slightly and
>> get some good feedback in the approval step, and that feels to me like the
>> feedback/comment bits should be on the list that the proposal is worked up on. Hmm...
>
> Yes, the goal should be as much discussion on the public list as possible.
> Only issues involving people and internal concom mechanics (moving budget
> moneys around etc) should be taken to the private list.
>
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
Author of (WebSphere Application Server Community Edition 2.0 User Guide)
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg247585.html
- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour
- Blog: http://tadabborat.blogspot.com
----
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein
"Writing clean code is what you must do in order to call yourself a
professional. There is no reasonable excuse for doing anything less
than your best."
- Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship
"Stay hungry, stay foolish."
- Steve Jobs
Re: How public is public?
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 5/25/2011 12:19 PM, Nick Burch wrote:
>
> One question though is on approval for events - where would this happen? Especially for
> small events that are seeking a budget, should that be on the open list or something like
> concom@?
Draft submitted via wiki, details drilled down on the open list. The voting
itself and confidential concerns can obviously be taken up by concom-internal...
but the results disclosed on the public list. Heck, votes could even be tallied
on the wiki, sparing both lists +1 noise.
> I'm torn here, I'm not sure about doing that on an open list (in the way that
> lots of PMCs do committer votes in private). However, most proposals change slightly and
> get some good feedback in the approval step, and that feels to me like the
> feedback/comment bits should be on the list that the proposal is worked up on. Hmm...
Yes, the goal should be as much discussion on the public list as possible.
Only issues involving people and internal concom mechanics (moving budget
moneys around etc) should be taken to the private list.
Re: How public is public?
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 7/14/2011 6:09 PM, Nick Burch wrote:
>
> We've got apachecon-discuss@apache.org for the big events already. concom is there for
> policy discussions, and approvals. We'd then have something like
> small-events-discuss@apache.org for things like barcamps, small co-located tracks,
> retreats etc. This list would hold discussion and initial planning, and for small events
> probably all planning. For other events, once a team is in place and approval granted,
> they'd move off to their own "planners" list for most things.
+1
Re: How public is public?
Posted by Mohammad Nour El-Din <no...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Nick Burch <ni...@alfresco.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2011, Nick Burch wrote:
>>
>> Maybe one solution is to have two public lists for those interested in
>> discussing and organising events, one for the larger and one for the smaller
>> events. When an event is ready to kick off detailed planning, then likely
>> they'll fork off to their own planners list (which may well not be an ASF
>> one). I had thought that the small events one would co-exist on concom@, but
>> maybe you're right and it should be public
>
> Having thought on this one for a month, and based on the other responses
> too, I think this is probably the best option
>
> We've got apachecon-discuss@apache.org for the big events already. concom is
> there for policy discussions, and approvals. We'd then have something like
> small-events-discuss@apache.org for things like barcamps, small co-located
> tracks, retreats etc. This list would hold discussion and initial planning,
> and for small events probably all planning. For other events, once a team is
> in place and approval granted, they'd move off to their own "planners" list
> for most things.
>
> This small events list could hopefully be watched by people interested in
> organising events. For example, I'd hope that it could be used to reach out
> to people who might want to help with a one day event in Amsterdam after
> GotoCon (as being discussed on concom@). If we do get enough people, that
> discussion will fork off to another list, but for getting interest and
> deciding what sort of event is a good fit (hackathon vs barcamp), a small
> events list does seem like the right sort of place to have it.
>
> If we only have the two public lists, it'll hopefully prevent too much
> fragmentation
>
> What does everyone else think? (I think this is largely what several other
> people have suggested in other bits of the thread, but I want to check
> before going ahead!)
>
> Cheers
> Nick
>
--
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
Author of (WebSphere Application Server Community Edition 2.0 User Guide)
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg247585.html
- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnour
- Blog: http://tadabborat.blogspot.com
----
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein
"Writing clean code is what you must do in order to call yourself a
professional. There is no reasonable excuse for doing anything less
than your best."
- Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship
"Stay hungry, stay foolish."
- Steve Jobs
Re: How public is public?
Posted by Nick Burch <ni...@alfresco.com>.
On Wed, 25 May 2011, Nick Burch wrote:
> Maybe one solution is to have two public lists for those interested in
> discussing and organising events, one for the larger and one for the
> smaller events. When an event is ready to kick off detailed planning,
> then likely they'll fork off to their own planners list (which may well
> not be an ASF one). I had thought that the small events one would
> co-exist on concom@, but maybe you're right and it should be public
Having thought on this one for a month, and based on the other responses
too, I think this is probably the best option
We've got apachecon-discuss@apache.org for the big events already. concom
is there for policy discussions, and approvals. We'd then have something
like small-events-discuss@apache.org for things like barcamps, small
co-located tracks, retreats etc. This list would hold discussion and
initial planning, and for small events probably all planning. For other
events, once a team is in place and approval granted, they'd move off to
their own "planners" list for most things.
This small events list could hopefully be watched by people interested in
organising events. For example, I'd hope that it could be used to reach
out to people who might want to help with a one day event in Amsterdam
after GotoCon (as being discussed on concom@). If we do get enough people,
that discussion will fork off to another list, but for getting interest
and deciding what sort of event is a good fit (hackathon vs barcamp), a
small events list does seem like the right sort of place to have it.
If we only have the two public lists, it'll hopefully prevent too much
fragmentation
What does everyone else think? (I think this is largely what several other
people have suggested in other bits of the thread, but I want to check
before going ahead!)
Cheers
Nick
Re: How public is public?
Posted by Alasdair Nottingham <no...@apache.org>.
On 25 May 2011 18:19, Nick Burch <ni...@alfresco.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> How many things do we do to plan/program/organize/partner?
>>
>> * Big ApacheCon (all PMC's 'invited', open to the public)
>> * Small 1-x project focused events (partners in programming, usually)
>> including community-wide meetups (open to the public)
>> * ASF 'presence' at non-Apache events (usually a handful of people)
>> * Retreats, including dev meets/hackathons (for 'contributors')
>> * Apache BarCamp (public, often co-located, sometimes stand-alone)
>>
>> The third should be handled on the committee-internal list; only some
>> of the events we are invited to would agree with public discussion of
>> 'their event'. It could be treated in the same category as the second
>> item, if a specific "foo Project Track" or "ASF Track" was agreed upon.
>
> I'd agree with that one
>
>> The other four each seem like they deserve their own perpetual
>> discussion list open to all contributors (eg; public).
>
> Do we really want 4 different lists? I'm worried about having too many lists
> and the effect it may have on building a community, and that's been raised
> by a few others (mostly on the concom@ discussion).
>
> Maybe one solution is to have two public lists for those interested in
> discussing and organising events, one for the larger and one for the smaller
> events. When an event is ready to kick off detailed planning, then likely
> they'll fork off to their own planners list (which may well not be an ASF
> one). I had thought that the small events one would co-exist on concom@, but
> maybe you're right and it should be public
>
> One question though is on approval for events - where would this happen?
> Especially for small events that are seeking a budget, should that be on the
> open list or something like concom@? I'm torn here, I'm not sure about doing
> that on an open list (in the way that lots of PMCs do committer votes in
> private). However, most proposals change slightly and get some good feedback
> in the approval step, and that feels to me like the feedback/comment bits
> should be on the list that the proposal is worked up on. Hmm...
>
Could you follow an incubator style model. Have the discussion in
public and have a public vote, then the proposal get sent to concom
for agreement/veto?
> Nick
>
--
Alasdair Nottingham
not@apache.org
Re: How public is public?
Posted by Nick Burch <ni...@alfresco.com>.
On Mon, 23 May 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> How many things do we do to plan/program/organize/partner?
>
> * Big ApacheCon (all PMC's 'invited', open to the public)
> * Small 1-x project focused events (partners in programming, usually)
> including community-wide meetups (open to the public)
> * ASF 'presence' at non-Apache events (usually a handful of people)
> * Retreats, including dev meets/hackathons (for 'contributors')
> * Apache BarCamp (public, often co-located, sometimes stand-alone)
>
> The third should be handled on the committee-internal list; only some
> of the events we are invited to would agree with public discussion of
> 'their event'. It could be treated in the same category as the second
> item, if a specific "foo Project Track" or "ASF Track" was agreed upon.
I'd agree with that one
> The other four each seem like they deserve their own perpetual
> discussion list open to all contributors (eg; public).
Do we really want 4 different lists? I'm worried about having too many
lists and the effect it may have on building a community, and that's been
raised by a few others (mostly on the concom@ discussion).
Maybe one solution is to have two public lists for those interested in
discussing and organising events, one for the larger and one for the
smaller events. When an event is ready to kick off detailed planning, then
likely they'll fork off to their own planners list (which may well not be
an ASF one). I had thought that the small events one would co-exist on
concom@, but maybe you're right and it should be public
One question though is on approval for events - where would this happen?
Especially for small events that are seeking a budget, should that be on
the open list or something like concom@? I'm torn here, I'm not sure about
doing that on an open list (in the way that lots of PMCs do committer
votes in private). However, most proposals change slightly and get some
good feedback in the approval step, and that feels to me like the
feedback/comment bits should be on the list that the proposal is worked up
on. Hmm...
Nick
Re: How public is public?
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@apache.org>.
On 5/23/2011 10:59 AM, Nick Burch wrote:
>
>> Should we similarly open a public "Camp'ing" discussion list?
>
> I'm worried that we don't want to fragment things too much
How many things do we do to plan/program/organize/partner?
* Big ApacheCon (all PMC's 'invited', open to the public)
* Small 1-x project focused events (partners in programming, usually)
including community-wide meetups (open to the public)
* ASF 'presence' at non-Apache events (usually a handful of people)
* Retreats, including dev meets/hackathons (for 'contributors')
* Apache BarCamp (public, often co-located, sometimes stand-alone)
The third should be handled on the committee-internal list; only some
of the events we are invited to would agree with public discussion of
'their event'. It could be treated in the same category as the second
item, if a specific "foo Project Track" or "ASF Track" was agreed upon.
The other four each seem like they deserve their own perpetual
discussion list open to all contributors (eg; public). If the total
volume of a specific list is expected to explode (planning ApacheCon
Europe 2012, for example) then a sub-list could temporarily exist.
Re: How public is public?
Posted by Nick Burch <ni...@alfresco.com>.
On Mon, 23 May 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 5/23/2011 8:13 AM, Nick Burch wrote:
>> In the mean time, would anyone be able to look into the mail-archive issue
>
> What issue?
The one you raised about it foundation lists being too hard to find,
sorry, wasn't very clear
>> That said, this list probably isn't the best place to send people who
>> might be interested in helping with a one day BarCamp or similar (which
>> is what I'd expect the group you're thinking of might?)
>
> Trying to discuss planning dinner for a handful of guests on a list
> discussing banquet preparation doesn't click.
Exactly
> Should we similarly open a public "Camp'ing" discussion list?
I'm worried that we don't want to fragment things too much
Nick
Re: How public is public?
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <de...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 5/23/2011 8:13 AM, Nick Burch wrote:
>
> In the mean time, would anyone be able to look into the mail-archive issue
What issue?
And why are people cc'ing a private list (especially a long expired one)
on public list threads? Taboo.
> That said, this list probably isn't the best place to send people who might be interested
> in helping with a one day BarCamp or similar (which is what I'd expect the group you're
> thinking of might?)
Trying to discuss planning dinner for a handful of guests on a list
discussing banquet preparation doesn't click. Should we similarly
open a public "Camp'ing" discussion list?
Re: How public is public?
Posted by Nick Burch <ni...@alfresco.com>.
On Sat, 21 May 2011, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> I was wondering about pushing out some publicity about these new more
> public lists but AFACT they aren't archived at mail-archives.apache.org
> [1] or really covered on the dev subsite [2]. I'm also a little fuzzy
> about which were created and what their intended role and audience is
> for each.
I'd like to get a bit more detail up about this list, and the other concom
ones, before we publicise it too widely. Ideally we can then to do a
publicity push to get the information on all our lists out to everyone who
may be interested.
In the mean time, would anyone be able to look into the mail-archive issue
> I would also like to take the opportunity of a Berlin Buzzwords thread
> over in Hadoopland to try to gently push a few people with links to
> Germany and experience of organizing events over in this direction. This
> would probably mean suggesting that some sort of conference thingy might
> one day happen in Germany-ish if enough volunteers stepped up...
I'd half suggest you tell them to attend the next Apache dinner in Berlin.
That way we only need to persuade Isabel to organise an event, and she can
then go there to round up willing victims^H^H co-organisers :)
That said, this list probably isn't the best place to send people who
might be interested in helping with a one day BarCamp or similar (which is
what I'd expect the group you're thinking of might?)
Nick