You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@diversity.apache.org by Griselda Cuevas <gr...@apache.org> on 2019/07/08 15:53:42 UTC
Recap from call w/ Outreachy's team
Hi Folks,
We had a call with the Outreachy team, the following people were present:
- Sage Sharp (Outreachy)
- Karen Sandler (Outreachy)
- Sam Ruby
- David Nalley
- Daniel Ruggeri
- Naomi Slater
The objective of the call was to better understand the order of operations
to establish the ASF as one of Outreachy's communities. Below are the notes
I took and topics we discussed. Let me know if you have any questions.
In terms of next steps, I'll be opening a call for volunteers to find a
Coordinator for the ASF, I'll do this knowing that the vote to give notice
to the board is ongoing[1], the reason is that Sage recommended we did this
in parallel to avoid rushing through upcoming deadlines. I confirmed with
Sam and he concurred.
[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/41d8b64938fb5d2fec944202c45fc10de85a242d151b026b84123b87@%3Cdev.diversity.apache.org%3E
__________________________________
Notes
[Gris shared context for introduction]
- The ASF recently created a D&I committee, our goal for this year is have
a clear understanding of the current status of D&I
- We're approaching this goal in two fronts: quantitative (we're revamping
our contributor survey) and qualitative (we're doing UX research with new
contributors around their contribution experience)
- We want to align the Outreachy internships with the UX research
methodology
[Discussion started]
- Sage likes the UX approach of this idea (interviews work well), Mozilla
has done some work around this (Emma Irwin)
- Once we kick-off internships, need to ensure we make the distinction,
that questions related to our research are about the interns' experience
with the ASF projects and not Outreachy
- We should connect with the Mozilla folks for knowledge sharing
[Questions about operations]
- An Outreachy Coordinator is the person who does the project vetting &
fund raising
- Recommendation from Karen: Ask the coordinator to do fundraising in
coordination w/ Outreachy through the partners already sponsoring, the
funds go through Outreachy
- From David: It's ok to have 1 coordinator for the ASF
- It's ok to split the sponsorship duties and the project evaluation duties
- Important deadlines: First week of August, We need a coordinator; Sept.
24th, projects need to be submitted
- Funding has until Dec. to get in, we should be fine
Next Steps
- Find a coordinator in parallel to current voting (ask the dev@ list)
- Work on funding from IBM (Sam is on this)
- Start promoting the opportunity to PMCs (this can wait until after the
voting, ideally give 1 mo for this)
Projects are due for Sept 24th (application deadline)
Re: Recap from call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by Griselda Cuevas <gr...@apache.org>.
Kevin,
You started a new thread to discuss this, may I ask we yield that convo to
that thread so we don't create noise in this one. There is important
information I want folks to focus on,
Thanks,
G
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 at 15:13, Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 7/8/2019 4:30 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Your offer has NOT been accepted at this time. Gris has a timeline in
> mind.
> Fair enough. I am, of course, happy to meet timelines by accelerating
> or slowing down work to meet timelines once they are documented.
> > Kevin, I ask that you take a voluntary timeout from meta discussions at
> > this point.
>
> Sorry but no. First, I don't know what you mean but meta discussions
> and second, I've done nothing except give my opinion respectfully,
> non-flippantly accompanied by detailed reasoning and in line with the
> CoC. I've also stepped forward to do work even when dissenting with
> nuances.
>
> On the contrary, you may consider your own advice as the threats you've
> made to ban me from posting are out of line. I am not an officer,
> contractor or employee and it is not right that you try and silence me
> the way you have been doing. I have broken no rules, I've not talked to
> any ASF sponsors, etc.
>
> I have pointed out tough questions that I feel need to be asked.
>
> Regards,
> KAM
>
> --
> Kevin A. McGrail
> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
>
>
Re: Recap from call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
On 7/8/2019 4:30 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Your offer has NOT been accepted at this time. Gris has a timeline in mind.
Fair enough. I am, of course, happy to meet timelines by accelerating
or slowing down work to meet timelines once they are documented.
> Kevin, I ask that you take a voluntary timeout from meta discussions at
> this point.
Sorry but no. First, I don't know what you mean but meta discussions
and second, I've done nothing except give my opinion respectfully,
non-flippantly accompanied by detailed reasoning and in line with the
CoC. I've also stepped forward to do work even when dissenting with
nuances.
On the contrary, you may consider your own advice as the threats you've
made to ban me from posting are out of line. I am not an officer,
contractor or employee and it is not right that you try and silence me
the way you have been doing. I have broken no rules, I've not talked to
any ASF sponsors, etc.
I have pointed out tough questions that I feel need to be asked.
Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: Recap from call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
Your offer has NOT been accepted at this time. Gris has a timeline in mind.
Kevin, I ask that you take a voluntary timeout from meta discussions at
this point.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019, 3:29 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org> wrote:
> As I have volunteered for that effort we why do not need to wait to get
> this groundwork done.
>
> There have been a number of comments by Rich and Bertrand in the past week
> about how hard it is to get projects to respond.
>
> Regards, KAM
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019, 12:34 Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 1:19 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 7/8/2019 1:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > > >> re: pmcs/simple alias, from discussions in years, pmcs@a.o was
> > > >> considered a restricted email address that needed to meet pretty
> > express
> > > >> requirements to email. I'm pretty sure we need at least
> coordination
> > to
> > > >> use it.
> > > > Indeed: it should, in fact, be the Coordinator (as Outreachy defines
> > > > that role, minus the fundraising aspects as I noted previously) that
> > > > sends the message. Until one is appointed by the ASF, the person to
> > > > send the message should be Gris.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, pmcs@a.o should not be abused. It would be counter-productive
> to
> > > > have a number of people helping by sending email to that alias.
> > >
> > > Sorry to email again on this topic. You are focusing on the who sends
> > > the email for the committee. That's not my point and I think your tact
> > > for soliciting for Outreachy Organizer role makes sense.
> > >
> > > However, even after the committee coordinates the content and defines
> > > who sends the email (which the coordinator sounds good), there have
> been
> > > restrictions on using pmcs@a.o. I'm not sure who owns or approves
> > > content sent to the alias but what I'm saying is we should coordinate
> > > that and find out more. Who approves it or does it just send to all
> the
> > > private@ PMC addresses which will trigger their moderation? Does it
> > > include the incubator, etc? Anyone know who we can ask more
> information?
> >
> > David and I can handle the approval, moderation, etc.
> >
> > As to the remainder of your question(s): lets defer that until we have
> > a message to be sent and an understanding as to how we are going to
> > organize this effort.
> >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > KAM
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kevin A. McGrail
> > > Member, Apache Software Foundation
> > > Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
>
Re: Recap from call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
As I have volunteered for that effort we why do not need to wait to get
this groundwork done.
There have been a number of comments by Rich and Bertrand in the past week
about how hard it is to get projects to respond.
Regards, KAM
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019, 12:34 Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 1:19 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/8/2019 1:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > >> re: pmcs/simple alias, from discussions in years, pmcs@a.o was
> > >> considered a restricted email address that needed to meet pretty
> express
> > >> requirements to email. I'm pretty sure we need at least coordination
> to
> > >> use it.
> > > Indeed: it should, in fact, be the Coordinator (as Outreachy defines
> > > that role, minus the fundraising aspects as I noted previously) that
> > > sends the message. Until one is appointed by the ASF, the person to
> > > send the message should be Gris.
> > >
> > > Yes, pmcs@a.o should not be abused. It would be counter-productive to
> > > have a number of people helping by sending email to that alias.
> >
> > Sorry to email again on this topic. You are focusing on the who sends
> > the email for the committee. That's not my point and I think your tact
> > for soliciting for Outreachy Organizer role makes sense.
> >
> > However, even after the committee coordinates the content and defines
> > who sends the email (which the coordinator sounds good), there have been
> > restrictions on using pmcs@a.o. I'm not sure who owns or approves
> > content sent to the alias but what I'm saying is we should coordinate
> > that and find out more. Who approves it or does it just send to all the
> > private@ PMC addresses which will trigger their moderation? Does it
> > include the incubator, etc? Anyone know who we can ask more information?
>
> David and I can handle the approval, moderation, etc.
>
> As to the remainder of your question(s): lets defer that until we have
> a message to be sent and an understanding as to how we are going to
> organize this effort.
>
> > Regards,
> >
> > KAM
> >
> > --
> > Kevin A. McGrail
> > Member, Apache Software Foundation
> > Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> > https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
Re: Recap from call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 1:19 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 7/8/2019 1:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >> re: pmcs/simple alias, from discussions in years, pmcs@a.o was
> >> considered a restricted email address that needed to meet pretty express
> >> requirements to email. I'm pretty sure we need at least coordination to
> >> use it.
> > Indeed: it should, in fact, be the Coordinator (as Outreachy defines
> > that role, minus the fundraising aspects as I noted previously) that
> > sends the message. Until one is appointed by the ASF, the person to
> > send the message should be Gris.
> >
> > Yes, pmcs@a.o should not be abused. It would be counter-productive to
> > have a number of people helping by sending email to that alias.
>
> Sorry to email again on this topic. You are focusing on the who sends
> the email for the committee. That's not my point and I think your tact
> for soliciting for Outreachy Organizer role makes sense.
>
> However, even after the committee coordinates the content and defines
> who sends the email (which the coordinator sounds good), there have been
> restrictions on using pmcs@a.o. I'm not sure who owns or approves
> content sent to the alias but what I'm saying is we should coordinate
> that and find out more. Who approves it or does it just send to all the
> private@ PMC addresses which will trigger their moderation? Does it
> include the incubator, etc? Anyone know who we can ask more information?
David and I can handle the approval, moderation, etc.
As to the remainder of your question(s): lets defer that until we have
a message to be sent and an understanding as to how we are going to
organize this effort.
> Regards,
>
> KAM
>
> --
> Kevin A. McGrail
> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
- Sam Ruby
Re: Recap from call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
On 7/8/2019 1:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> re: pmcs/simple alias, from discussions in years, pmcs@a.o was
>> considered a restricted email address that needed to meet pretty express
>> requirements to email. I'm pretty sure we need at least coordination to
>> use it.
> Indeed: it should, in fact, be the Coordinator (as Outreachy defines
> that role, minus the fundraising aspects as I noted previously) that
> sends the message. Until one is appointed by the ASF, the person to
> send the message should be Gris.
>
> Yes, pmcs@a.o should not be abused. It would be counter-productive to
> have a number of people helping by sending email to that alias.
Sorry to email again on this topic. You are focusing on the who sends
the email for the committee. That's not my point and I think your tact
for soliciting for Outreachy Organizer role makes sense.
However, even after the committee coordinates the content and defines
who sends the email (which the coordinator sounds good), there have been
restrictions on using pmcs@a.o. I'm not sure who owns or approves
content sent to the alias but what I'm saying is we should coordinate
that and find out more. Who approves it or does it just send to all the
private@ PMC addresses which will trigger their moderation? Does it
include the incubator, etc? Anyone know who we can ask more information?
Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: Recap from call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 1:07 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 7/8/2019 12:48 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >> And yes, the more time the better for the projects to know about this.
> >> I volunteered to help shepherd this item in my vote and I'd like to get
> >> permission to email to the pmcs@a.o address. Anyone know how we request
> >> that?
> > Coordinator is a substantial commitment:
> >
> > https://www.outreachy.org/mentor/#coordinator
> >
> > Ideally, the group will identify a coordinator (minus the funding
> > aspects of that role) and content to be sent.
> >
> > pmcs@a.o is a simple alias.
> >
> To be clear, I can't step up for Outreachy coordinator. But maybe Uli
> can from his xp with GSOC? I am just volunteering to help with Comms.
>
> re: pmcs/simple alias, from discussions in years, pmcs@a.o was
> considered a restricted email address that needed to meet pretty express
> requirements to email. I'm pretty sure we need at least coordination to
> use it.
Indeed: it should, in fact, be the Coordinator (as Outreachy defines
that role, minus the fundraising aspects as I noted previously) that
sends the message. Until one is appointed by the ASF, the person to
send the message should be Gris.
Yes, pmcs@a.o should not be abused. It would be counter-productive to
have a number of people helping by sending email to that alias.
> Regards,
>
> KAM
>
> --
> Kevin A. McGrail
> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
- Sam Ruby
Re: Recap from call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
On 7/8/2019 12:48 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> And yes, the more time the better for the projects to know about this.
>> I volunteered to help shepherd this item in my vote and I'd like to get
>> permission to email to the pmcs@a.o address. Anyone know how we request
>> that?
> Coordinator is a substantial commitment:
>
> https://www.outreachy.org/mentor/#coordinator
>
> Ideally, the group will identify a coordinator (minus the funding
> aspects of that role) and content to be sent.
>
> pmcs@a.o is a simple alias.
>
To be clear, I can't step up for Outreachy coordinator. But maybe Uli
can from his xp with GSOC? I am just volunteering to help with Comms.
re: pmcs/simple alias, from discussions in years, pmcs@a.o was
considered a restricted email address that needed to meet pretty express
requirements to email. I'm pretty sure we need at least coordination to
use it.
Regards,
KAM
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: Recap from call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 12:23 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> First, I don't believe this meeting was advertised on list for other
> committee members to potentially attend. Please fix this for future
> meetings.
Step one will be identifying a coordinator. The typical Outreachy
process has the community providing funding, but for the moment the
ASF is going a different way. I will work the funding aspects for
this round. Others (with cash in hand, in multiples of $6,500) are
welcome to join me.
> And yes, the more time the better for the projects to know about this.
> I volunteered to help shepherd this item in my vote and I'd like to get
> permission to email to the pmcs@a.o address. Anyone know how we request
> that?
Coordinator is a substantial commitment:
https://www.outreachy.org/mentor/#coordinator
Ideally, the group will identify a coordinator (minus the funding
aspects of that role) and content to be sent.
pmcs@a.o is a simple alias.
> Regards,
> KAM
- Sam Ruby
> On 7/8/2019 12:01 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:53 AM Griselda Cuevas <gr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> - Start promoting the opportunity to PMCs (this can wait until after the
> >> voting, ideally give 1 mo for this)
> >>
> >> Projects are due for Sept 24th (application deadline)
> > I encourage us to start promoting this to the PMCs even earlier (mid
> > to late July) giving projects approximately two months to do so. Even
> > if we haven't identified the coordinator, there is some basic
> > information from the Outreachy website that projects will need to know
> > before signing up. This will be our first time through the process,
> > and many people (particularly in Europe) disappear for weeks at a time
> > in the summer months.
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
>
>
> --
> Kevin A. McGrail
> Member, Apache Software Foundation
> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
>
Re: Recap from call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
First, I don't believe this meeting was advertised on list for other
committee members to potentially attend. Please fix this for future
meetings.
And yes, the more time the better for the projects to know about this.
I volunteered to help shepherd this item in my vote and I'd like to get
permission to email to the pmcs@a.o address. Anyone know how we request
that?
Regards,
KAM
On 7/8/2019 12:01 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:53 AM Griselda Cuevas <gr...@apache.org> wrote:
>> - Start promoting the opportunity to PMCs (this can wait until after the
>> voting, ideally give 1 mo for this)
>>
>> Projects are due for Sept 24th (application deadline)
> I encourage us to start promoting this to the PMCs even earlier (mid
> to late July) giving projects approximately two months to do so. Even
> if we haven't identified the coordinator, there is some basic
> information from the Outreachy website that projects will need to know
> before signing up. This will be our first time through the process,
> and many people (particularly in Europe) disappear for weeks at a time
> in the summer months.
>
> - Sam Ruby
--
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171
Re: Recap from call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:53 AM Griselda Cuevas <gr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> - Start promoting the opportunity to PMCs (this can wait until after the
> voting, ideally give 1 mo for this)
>
> Projects are due for Sept 24th (application deadline)
I encourage us to start promoting this to the PMCs even earlier (mid
to late July) giving projects approximately two months to do so. Even
if we haven't identified the coordinator, there is some basic
information from the Outreachy website that projects will need to know
before signing up. This will be our first time through the process,
and many people (particularly in Europe) disappear for weeks at a time
in the summer months.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap from
call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
+1000
Having served in many roles, including setting up GSoC, President, EVP, VP, Director and, of course, committer, I don't need a lecture on what the Apache Way is or how to empower Gris and team to get stuff done within it.
More importantly I am here to ensure Gris and team don't succumb to the kind of random process enforcement that is now common for some people.
That is the kind of nonsense that says nobody can move without the implicit permission of everyone on this list and/or the board is a sure fire way to fail. Reversible steps are fine. If you want it in Apache Way terms then think of it as Commit Then Review vs Review Then Commit.
I'll be equally as forceful when things aren't done well.
Ross
---
Sent from my phone, likely while waking down the stars and having a conversation. Sorry about my carelessness, I blame the machines.
________________________________
From: Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 6:34:29 PM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@diversity.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap from call w/ Outreachy's team
A reminder Kevin,
While it is important to work to achieve buy-in from the many volunteers
Gris will need to help with the work, D&I is *not* a traditional PMC.
Think of it more like conferences. Precisely because such efforts have, in
the past, been literally talked to death, the board chose a different
structure for this D&I project: Gris both needs, *and* *has* the right
to operate as VP Diversity, as she has done here.
What's more: she has already put in an *enormous* amount of effort to
achieve buy-in from the volunteers here. So even though she has the right
to make executive decisions, she's clearly not making them without
consultation. Gris is doing what I, as a board member, intended her to be
able to do when I voted for both the first and the second resolution on
D&I. I have full faith in both her ability to continue doing it, and in
Sam's ability to call Gris to accounts if she slips out of the bounds of
that role.
Best Regards,
Myrle
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:04 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 7/8/2019 12:51 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > "If it didn't happen on the list it didn't happen" does not mean nothing
> can happen in this way, only that decisions are not made without time for
> community feedback and engagement.
> >
> > No problem in this case. Thank you for keeping things moving.
>
> Ross,
>
> The committee not being notified it was happening and not extending the
> invite to others on list is a no-no.
>
> For similar complaints, see Sally's complaint on June 2nd for the
> Hackathon meetings with too little notice for the bridge information on
> planners@. Luckily Rich had emailed about it previously so this was
> just the logistics details and more announcements were made since.
>
> We need to give Gris and others new to Apache correct guidance. Using
> synchronous comms especially meetings without everyone invited are
> pitfalls for a lack of inclusion and definitely not in line with the
> Apache Way.
>
> Regards,
>
> KAM
>
>
Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap from
call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
Either way it is wrong to threaten my posting ability for relaying a valid
complaint.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019, 15:00 Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/8/19 3:08 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> > I will be negative 1 and say that planners, also not a traditional pmc,
> > just had a complaint last month for this exact type of issue. Made by
> > Sally Khudairi.
>
>
> FWIW, at the time I interpreted that more as a "would have been nice to
> know" than a "YOU MUST".
>
> Notifying folks that there's going to be a meeting is probably a good
> thing. Making it an open invitation for all committee members is not,
> since it decreases the signal-to-noise in the meeting, and often leaves
> the outside party confused as to which voice was authoritative.
>
> Internal-only meetings - sure, invite the whole family. External
> meetings, where we are representing ourselves to a third party, need to
> have a clear leader.
>
> All IMHO, of course, but leaning heavily on a long history of Doing It
> Wrong in ConCom.
>
>
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019, 14:05 Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com
> .invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Sent from my phone, likely while waking down the stars and having a
> >> conversation. Sorry about my carelessness, I blame the machines.
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Griselda Cuevas <gr...@apache.org>
> >> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 8:00:46 PM
> >> To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@diversity.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap
> >> from call w/ Outreachy's team
> >>
> >> Thanks Myrle, and thank you Kevin for your intention to guide me.
> >>
> >> Even when I might be relatively new to the ASF (been here for 2 years),
> I
> >> want to clarify that this wasn't a "newbie mistake", I understand
> >> transparency is key in the Apache Way. I intentionally didn't invite the
> >> entire committee because this was a meeting I needed in order to make an
> >> informed decision on how to move forward once we sorted other matters.
> >>
> >> The Apache Way encourages transparency and I honored that by bringing
> back
> >> to the list the result of a meeting I called, I didn't make a decision
> nor
> >> hide the outcome.
> >>
> >> I anticipate that I will continue to have more meetings where I won't be
> >> able to invite the entire committee and I'd appreciate not to continue
> >> being corrected for that. I'm saying this not because I'm too proud or
> >> don't want to live by the Apache Way, I'm saying this because I want to
> get
> >> the freedom to work on my own style and also set the stage for other in
> >> this committee to do it.
> >>
> >> One more point I'd like to make is that, there is no need for the entire
> >> committee to be in every single discussion or project. There are so many
> >> initiatives, and we are short in hands. I'd love for us to be a team
> where
> >> we trust each other and we can delegate and lead.
> >>
> >> I hope you understand where I am coming from.
> >> G
> >>
> >> On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 at 10:34, Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> A reminder Kevin,
> >>>
> >>> While it is important to work to achieve buy-in from the many
> volunteers
> >>> Gris will need to help with the work, D&I is *not* a traditional PMC.
> >>> Think of it more like conferences. Precisely because such efforts
> have,
> >> in
> >>> the past, been literally talked to death, the board chose a different
> >>> structure for this D&I project: Gris both needs, *and* *has* the
> right
> >>> to operate as VP Diversity, as she has done here.
> >>>
> >>> What's more: she has already put in an *enormous* amount of effort to
> >>> achieve buy-in from the volunteers here. So even though she has the
> >> right
> >>> to make executive decisions, she's clearly not making them without
> >>> consultation. Gris is doing what I, as a board member, intended her to
> >> be
> >>> able to do when I voted for both the first and the second resolution on
> >>> D&I. I have full faith in both her ability to continue doing it, and
> in
> >>> Sam's ability to call Gris to accounts if she slips out of the bounds
> of
> >>> that role.
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards,
> >>> Myrle
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:04 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/8/2019 12:51 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>>>> "If it didn't happen on the list it didn't happen" does not mean
> >>> nothing
> >>>> can happen in this way, only that decisions are not made without time
> >> for
> >>>> community feedback and engagement.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No problem in this case. Thank you for keeping things moving.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ross,
> >>>>
> >>>> The committee not being notified it was happening and not extending
> the
> >>>> invite to others on list is a no-no.
> >>>>
> >>>> For similar complaints, see Sally's complaint on June 2nd for the
> >>>> Hackathon meetings with too little notice for the bridge information
> on
> >>>> planners@. Luckily Rich had emailed about it previously so this was
> >>>> just the logistics details and more announcements were made since.
> >>>>
> >>>> We need to give Gris and others new to Apache correct guidance.
> Using
> >>>> synchronous comms especially meetings without everyone invited are
> >>>> pitfalls for a lack of inclusion and definitely not in line with the
> >>>> Apache Way.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> KAM
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
> http://rcbowen.com/
> @rbowen
>
Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap from
call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 7/8/19 3:08 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> I will be negative 1 and say that planners, also not a traditional pmc,
> just had a complaint last month for this exact type of issue. Made by
> Sally Khudairi.
FWIW, at the time I interpreted that more as a "would have been nice to
know" than a "YOU MUST".
Notifying folks that there's going to be a meeting is probably a good
thing. Making it an open invitation for all committee members is not,
since it decreases the signal-to-noise in the meeting, and often leaves
the outside party confused as to which voice was authoritative.
Internal-only meetings - sure, invite the whole family. External
meetings, where we are representing ourselves to a third party, need to
have a clear leader.
All IMHO, of course, but leaning heavily on a long history of Doing It
Wrong in ConCom.
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019, 14:05 Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Sent from my phone, likely while waking down the stars and having a
>> conversation. Sorry about my carelessness, I blame the machines.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Griselda Cuevas <gr...@apache.org>
>> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 8:00:46 PM
>> To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@diversity.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap
>> from call w/ Outreachy's team
>>
>> Thanks Myrle, and thank you Kevin for your intention to guide me.
>>
>> Even when I might be relatively new to the ASF (been here for 2 years), I
>> want to clarify that this wasn't a "newbie mistake", I understand
>> transparency is key in the Apache Way. I intentionally didn't invite the
>> entire committee because this was a meeting I needed in order to make an
>> informed decision on how to move forward once we sorted other matters.
>>
>> The Apache Way encourages transparency and I honored that by bringing back
>> to the list the result of a meeting I called, I didn't make a decision nor
>> hide the outcome.
>>
>> I anticipate that I will continue to have more meetings where I won't be
>> able to invite the entire committee and I'd appreciate not to continue
>> being corrected for that. I'm saying this not because I'm too proud or
>> don't want to live by the Apache Way, I'm saying this because I want to get
>> the freedom to work on my own style and also set the stage for other in
>> this committee to do it.
>>
>> One more point I'd like to make is that, there is no need for the entire
>> committee to be in every single discussion or project. There are so many
>> initiatives, and we are short in hands. I'd love for us to be a team where
>> we trust each other and we can delegate and lead.
>>
>> I hope you understand where I am coming from.
>> G
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 at 10:34, Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> A reminder Kevin,
>>>
>>> While it is important to work to achieve buy-in from the many volunteers
>>> Gris will need to help with the work, D&I is *not* a traditional PMC.
>>> Think of it more like conferences. Precisely because such efforts have,
>> in
>>> the past, been literally talked to death, the board chose a different
>>> structure for this D&I project: Gris both needs, *and* *has* the right
>>> to operate as VP Diversity, as she has done here.
>>>
>>> What's more: she has already put in an *enormous* amount of effort to
>>> achieve buy-in from the volunteers here. So even though she has the
>> right
>>> to make executive decisions, she's clearly not making them without
>>> consultation. Gris is doing what I, as a board member, intended her to
>> be
>>> able to do when I voted for both the first and the second resolution on
>>> D&I. I have full faith in both her ability to continue doing it, and in
>>> Sam's ability to call Gris to accounts if she slips out of the bounds of
>>> that role.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Myrle
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:04 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/8/2019 12:51 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>> "If it didn't happen on the list it didn't happen" does not mean
>>> nothing
>>>> can happen in this way, only that decisions are not made without time
>> for
>>>> community feedback and engagement.
>>>>>
>>>>> No problem in this case. Thank you for keeping things moving.
>>>>
>>>> Ross,
>>>>
>>>> The committee not being notified it was happening and not extending the
>>>> invite to others on list is a no-no.
>>>>
>>>> For similar complaints, see Sally's complaint on June 2nd for the
>>>> Hackathon meetings with too little notice for the bridge information on
>>>> planners@. Luckily Rich had emailed about it previously so this was
>>>> just the logistics details and more announcements were made since.
>>>>
>>>> We need to give Gris and others new to Apache correct guidance. Using
>>>> synchronous comms especially meetings without everyone invited are
>>>> pitfalls for a lack of inclusion and definitely not in line with the
>>>> Apache Way.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> KAM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
http://rcbowen.com/
@rbowen
Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap from
call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
+1
---
Sent from my phone, likely while waking down the stars and having a conversation. Sorry about my carelessness, I blame the machines.
________________________________
From: Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 8:14:08 PM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@diversity.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap from call w/ Outreachy's team
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:08 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I will be negative 1
Kevin: noted. Gris: proceed.
> and say that planners, also not a traditional pmc,
> just had a complaint last month for this exact type of issue. Made by
> Sally Khudairi.
Take it off list. Gris is working within her designated role and
involving others. This is not the case with the issue you are
describing.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap from
call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 3:08 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I will be negative 1
Kevin: noted. Gris: proceed.
> and say that planners, also not a traditional pmc,
> just had a complaint last month for this exact type of issue. Made by
> Sally Khudairi.
Take it off list. Gris is working within her designated role and
involving others. This is not the case with the issue you are
describing.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap from
call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
I will be negative 1 and say that planners, also not a traditional pmc,
just had a complaint last month for this exact type of issue. Made by
Sally Khudairi.
Regards, KAM
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019, 14:05 Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid>
wrote:
> +1
>
> ---
>
> Sent from my phone, likely while waking down the stars and having a
> conversation. Sorry about my carelessness, I blame the machines.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Griselda Cuevas <gr...@apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 8:00:46 PM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@diversity.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap
> from call w/ Outreachy's team
>
> Thanks Myrle, and thank you Kevin for your intention to guide me.
>
> Even when I might be relatively new to the ASF (been here for 2 years), I
> want to clarify that this wasn't a "newbie mistake", I understand
> transparency is key in the Apache Way. I intentionally didn't invite the
> entire committee because this was a meeting I needed in order to make an
> informed decision on how to move forward once we sorted other matters.
>
> The Apache Way encourages transparency and I honored that by bringing back
> to the list the result of a meeting I called, I didn't make a decision nor
> hide the outcome.
>
> I anticipate that I will continue to have more meetings where I won't be
> able to invite the entire committee and I'd appreciate not to continue
> being corrected for that. I'm saying this not because I'm too proud or
> don't want to live by the Apache Way, I'm saying this because I want to get
> the freedom to work on my own style and also set the stage for other in
> this committee to do it.
>
> One more point I'd like to make is that, there is no need for the entire
> committee to be in every single discussion or project. There are so many
> initiatives, and we are short in hands. I'd love for us to be a team where
> we trust each other and we can delegate and lead.
>
> I hope you understand where I am coming from.
> G
>
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 at 10:34, Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > A reminder Kevin,
> >
> > While it is important to work to achieve buy-in from the many volunteers
> > Gris will need to help with the work, D&I is *not* a traditional PMC.
> > Think of it more like conferences. Precisely because such efforts have,
> in
> > the past, been literally talked to death, the board chose a different
> > structure for this D&I project: Gris both needs, *and* *has* the right
> > to operate as VP Diversity, as she has done here.
> >
> > What's more: she has already put in an *enormous* amount of effort to
> > achieve buy-in from the volunteers here. So even though she has the
> right
> > to make executive decisions, she's clearly not making them without
> > consultation. Gris is doing what I, as a board member, intended her to
> be
> > able to do when I voted for both the first and the second resolution on
> > D&I. I have full faith in both her ability to continue doing it, and in
> > Sam's ability to call Gris to accounts if she slips out of the bounds of
> > that role.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Myrle
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:04 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 7/8/2019 12:51 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > > > "If it didn't happen on the list it didn't happen" does not mean
> > nothing
> > > can happen in this way, only that decisions are not made without time
> for
> > > community feedback and engagement.
> > > >
> > > > No problem in this case. Thank you for keeping things moving.
> > >
> > > Ross,
> > >
> > > The committee not being notified it was happening and not extending the
> > > invite to others on list is a no-no.
> > >
> > > For similar complaints, see Sally's complaint on June 2nd for the
> > > Hackathon meetings with too little notice for the bridge information on
> > > planners@. Luckily Rich had emailed about it previously so this was
> > > just the logistics details and more announcements were made since.
> > >
> > > We need to give Gris and others new to Apache correct guidance. Using
> > > synchronous comms especially meetings without everyone invited are
> > > pitfalls for a lack of inclusion and definitely not in line with the
> > > Apache Way.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > KAM
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap from
call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>.
+1
On Mon 8. Jul 2019 at 21:05, Ross Gardler
<Ro...@microsoft.com.invalid> wrote:
> +1
>
> ---
>
> Sent from my phone, likely while waking down the stars and having a
> conversation. Sorry about my carelessness, I blame the machines.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Griselda Cuevas <gr...@apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 8:00:46 PM
> To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@diversity.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap
> from call w/ Outreachy's team
>
> Thanks Myrle, and thank you Kevin for your intention to guide me.
>
> Even when I might be relatively new to the ASF (been here for 2 years), I
> want to clarify that this wasn't a "newbie mistake", I understand
> transparency is key in the Apache Way. I intentionally didn't invite the
> entire committee because this was a meeting I needed in order to make an
> informed decision on how to move forward once we sorted other matters.
>
> The Apache Way encourages transparency and I honored that by bringing back
> to the list the result of a meeting I called, I didn't make a decision nor
> hide the outcome.
>
> I anticipate that I will continue to have more meetings where I won't be
> able to invite the entire committee and I'd appreciate not to continue
> being corrected for that. I'm saying this not because I'm too proud or
> don't want to live by the Apache Way, I'm saying this because I want to get
> the freedom to work on my own style and also set the stage for other in
> this committee to do it.
>
> One more point I'd like to make is that, there is no need for the entire
> committee to be in every single discussion or project. There are so many
> initiatives, and we are short in hands. I'd love for us to be a team where
> we trust each other and we can delegate and lead.
>
> I hope you understand where I am coming from.
> G
>
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 at 10:34, Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > A reminder Kevin,
> >
> > While it is important to work to achieve buy-in from the many volunteers
> > Gris will need to help with the work, D&I is *not* a traditional PMC.
> > Think of it more like conferences. Precisely because such efforts have,
> in
> > the past, been literally talked to death, the board chose a different
> > structure for this D&I project: Gris both needs, *and* *has* the right
> > to operate as VP Diversity, as she has done here.
> >
> > What's more: she has already put in an *enormous* amount of effort to
> > achieve buy-in from the volunteers here. So even though she has the
> right
> > to make executive decisions, she's clearly not making them without
> > consultation. Gris is doing what I, as a board member, intended her to
> be
> > able to do when I voted for both the first and the second resolution on
> > D&I. I have full faith in both her ability to continue doing it, and in
> > Sam's ability to call Gris to accounts if she slips out of the bounds of
> > that role.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Myrle
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:04 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 7/8/2019 12:51 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > > > "If it didn't happen on the list it didn't happen" does not mean
> > nothing
> > > can happen in this way, only that decisions are not made without time
> for
> > > community feedback and engagement.
> > > >
> > > > No problem in this case. Thank you for keeping things moving.
> > >
> > > Ross,
> > >
> > > The committee not being notified it was happening and not extending the
> > > invite to others on list is a no-no.
> > >
> > > For similar complaints, see Sally's complaint on June 2nd for the
> > > Hackathon meetings with too little notice for the bridge information on
> > > planners@. Luckily Rich had emailed about it previously so this was
> > > just the logistics details and more announcements were made since.
> > >
> > > We need to give Gris and others new to Apache correct guidance. Using
> > > synchronous comms especially meetings without everyone invited are
> > > pitfalls for a lack of inclusion and definitely not in line with the
> > > Apache Way.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > KAM
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap from
call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
+1
---
Sent from my phone, likely while waking down the stars and having a conversation. Sorry about my carelessness, I blame the machines.
________________________________
From: Griselda Cuevas <gr...@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 8:00:46 PM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@diversity.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap from call w/ Outreachy's team
Thanks Myrle, and thank you Kevin for your intention to guide me.
Even when I might be relatively new to the ASF (been here for 2 years), I
want to clarify that this wasn't a "newbie mistake", I understand
transparency is key in the Apache Way. I intentionally didn't invite the
entire committee because this was a meeting I needed in order to make an
informed decision on how to move forward once we sorted other matters.
The Apache Way encourages transparency and I honored that by bringing back
to the list the result of a meeting I called, I didn't make a decision nor
hide the outcome.
I anticipate that I will continue to have more meetings where I won't be
able to invite the entire committee and I'd appreciate not to continue
being corrected for that. I'm saying this not because I'm too proud or
don't want to live by the Apache Way, I'm saying this because I want to get
the freedom to work on my own style and also set the stage for other in
this committee to do it.
One more point I'd like to make is that, there is no need for the entire
committee to be in every single discussion or project. There are so many
initiatives, and we are short in hands. I'd love for us to be a team where
we trust each other and we can delegate and lead.
I hope you understand where I am coming from.
G
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 at 10:34, Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
> A reminder Kevin,
>
> While it is important to work to achieve buy-in from the many volunteers
> Gris will need to help with the work, D&I is *not* a traditional PMC.
> Think of it more like conferences. Precisely because such efforts have, in
> the past, been literally talked to death, the board chose a different
> structure for this D&I project: Gris both needs, *and* *has* the right
> to operate as VP Diversity, as she has done here.
>
> What's more: she has already put in an *enormous* amount of effort to
> achieve buy-in from the volunteers here. So even though she has the right
> to make executive decisions, she's clearly not making them without
> consultation. Gris is doing what I, as a board member, intended her to be
> able to do when I voted for both the first and the second resolution on
> D&I. I have full faith in both her ability to continue doing it, and in
> Sam's ability to call Gris to accounts if she slips out of the bounds of
> that role.
>
> Best Regards,
> Myrle
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:04 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On 7/8/2019 12:51 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > > "If it didn't happen on the list it didn't happen" does not mean
> nothing
> > can happen in this way, only that decisions are not made without time for
> > community feedback and engagement.
> > >
> > > No problem in this case. Thank you for keeping things moving.
> >
> > Ross,
> >
> > The committee not being notified it was happening and not extending the
> > invite to others on list is a no-no.
> >
> > For similar complaints, see Sally's complaint on June 2nd for the
> > Hackathon meetings with too little notice for the bridge information on
> > planners@. Luckily Rich had emailed about it previously so this was
> > just the logistics details and more announcements were made since.
> >
> > We need to give Gris and others new to Apache correct guidance. Using
> > synchronous comms especially meetings without everyone invited are
> > pitfalls for a lack of inclusion and definitely not in line with the
> > Apache Way.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > KAM
> >
> >
>
Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap from
call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
You have my full support, Gris.
Thanks for having the call and for bringing the info back to the list.
I'll digest this overnight and email if I have any questions.
-Joan
On 2019-07-08 15:00, Griselda Cuevas wrote:
> Thanks Myrle, and thank you Kevin for your intention to guide me.
>
> Even when I might be relatively new to the ASF (been here for 2 years), I
> want to clarify that this wasn't a "newbie mistake", I understand
> transparency is key in the Apache Way. I intentionally didn't invite the
> entire committee because this was a meeting I needed in order to make an
> informed decision on how to move forward once we sorted other matters.
>
> The Apache Way encourages transparency and I honored that by bringing back
> to the list the result of a meeting I called, I didn't make a decision nor
> hide the outcome.
>
> I anticipate that I will continue to have more meetings where I won't be
> able to invite the entire committee and I'd appreciate not to continue
> being corrected for that. I'm saying this not because I'm too proud or
> don't want to live by the Apache Way, I'm saying this because I want to get
> the freedom to work on my own style and also set the stage for other in
> this committee to do it.
>
> One more point I'd like to make is that, there is no need for the entire
> committee to be in every single discussion or project. There are so many
> initiatives, and we are short in hands. I'd love for us to be a team where
> we trust each other and we can delegate and lead.
>
> I hope you understand where I am coming from.
> G
>
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 at 10:34, Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> A reminder Kevin,
>>
>> While it is important to work to achieve buy-in from the many volunteers
>> Gris will need to help with the work, D&I is *not* a traditional PMC.
>> Think of it more like conferences. Precisely because such efforts have, in
>> the past, been literally talked to death, the board chose a different
>> structure for this D&I project: Gris both needs, *and* *has* the right
>> to operate as VP Diversity, as she has done here.
>>
>> What's more: she has already put in an *enormous* amount of effort to
>> achieve buy-in from the volunteers here. So even though she has the right
>> to make executive decisions, she's clearly not making them without
>> consultation. Gris is doing what I, as a board member, intended her to be
>> able to do when I voted for both the first and the second resolution on
>> D&I. I have full faith in both her ability to continue doing it, and in
>> Sam's ability to call Gris to accounts if she slips out of the bounds of
>> that role.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Myrle
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:04 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/8/2019 12:51 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>> "If it didn't happen on the list it didn't happen" does not mean
>> nothing
>>> can happen in this way, only that decisions are not made without time for
>>> community feedback and engagement.
>>>>
>>>> No problem in this case. Thank you for keeping things moving.
>>>
>>> Ross,
>>>
>>> The committee not being notified it was happening and not extending the
>>> invite to others on list is a no-no.
>>>
>>> For similar complaints, see Sally's complaint on June 2nd for the
>>> Hackathon meetings with too little notice for the bridge information on
>>> planners@. Luckily Rich had emailed about it previously so this was
>>> just the logistics details and more announcements were made since.
>>>
>>> We need to give Gris and others new to Apache correct guidance. Using
>>> synchronous comms especially meetings without everyone invited are
>>> pitfalls for a lack of inclusion and definitely not in line with the
>>> Apache Way.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> KAM
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap from
call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 7/8/19 3:00 PM, Griselda Cuevas wrote:
> One more point I'd like to make is that, there is no need for the entire
> committee to be in every single discussion or project. There are so many
> initiatives, and we are short in hands. I'd love for us to be a team where
> we trust each other and we can delegate and lead.
Big +1 to that.
Anecdotally, the MAIN reason that ConCom ended up being disbanded was
the gridlock that resulted from several dozen people insisting on being
on every phone call, and to have a voice in every decision.
When you're going to have a real-time phone-call with a "vendor",
keeping the number of participants small is a great way to ensure they
don't run away screaming.
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
http://rcbowen.com/
@rbowen
Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap from
call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by Griselda Cuevas <gr...@apache.org>.
Thanks Myrle, and thank you Kevin for your intention to guide me.
Even when I might be relatively new to the ASF (been here for 2 years), I
want to clarify that this wasn't a "newbie mistake", I understand
transparency is key in the Apache Way. I intentionally didn't invite the
entire committee because this was a meeting I needed in order to make an
informed decision on how to move forward once we sorted other matters.
The Apache Way encourages transparency and I honored that by bringing back
to the list the result of a meeting I called, I didn't make a decision nor
hide the outcome.
I anticipate that I will continue to have more meetings where I won't be
able to invite the entire committee and I'd appreciate not to continue
being corrected for that. I'm saying this not because I'm too proud or
don't want to live by the Apache Way, I'm saying this because I want to get
the freedom to work on my own style and also set the stage for other in
this committee to do it.
One more point I'd like to make is that, there is no need for the entire
committee to be in every single discussion or project. There are so many
initiatives, and we are short in hands. I'd love for us to be a team where
we trust each other and we can delegate and lead.
I hope you understand where I am coming from.
G
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 at 10:34, Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
> A reminder Kevin,
>
> While it is important to work to achieve buy-in from the many volunteers
> Gris will need to help with the work, D&I is *not* a traditional PMC.
> Think of it more like conferences. Precisely because such efforts have, in
> the past, been literally talked to death, the board chose a different
> structure for this D&I project: Gris both needs, *and* *has* the right
> to operate as VP Diversity, as she has done here.
>
> What's more: she has already put in an *enormous* amount of effort to
> achieve buy-in from the volunteers here. So even though she has the right
> to make executive decisions, she's clearly not making them without
> consultation. Gris is doing what I, as a board member, intended her to be
> able to do when I voted for both the first and the second resolution on
> D&I. I have full faith in both her ability to continue doing it, and in
> Sam's ability to call Gris to accounts if she slips out of the bounds of
> that role.
>
> Best Regards,
> Myrle
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:04 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On 7/8/2019 12:51 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > > "If it didn't happen on the list it didn't happen" does not mean
> nothing
> > can happen in this way, only that decisions are not made without time for
> > community feedback and engagement.
> > >
> > > No problem in this case. Thank you for keeping things moving.
> >
> > Ross,
> >
> > The committee not being notified it was happening and not extending the
> > invite to others on list is a no-no.
> >
> > For similar complaints, see Sally's complaint on June 2nd for the
> > Hackathon meetings with too little notice for the bridge information on
> > planners@. Luckily Rich had emailed about it previously so this was
> > just the logistics details and more announcements were made since.
> >
> > We need to give Gris and others new to Apache correct guidance. Using
> > synchronous comms especially meetings without everyone invited are
> > pitfalls for a lack of inclusion and definitely not in line with the
> > Apache Way.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > KAM
> >
> >
>
Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap from
call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>.
A reminder Kevin,
While it is important to work to achieve buy-in from the many volunteers
Gris will need to help with the work, D&I is *not* a traditional PMC.
Think of it more like conferences. Precisely because such efforts have, in
the past, been literally talked to death, the board chose a different
structure for this D&I project: Gris both needs, *and* *has* the right
to operate as VP Diversity, as she has done here.
What's more: she has already put in an *enormous* amount of effort to
achieve buy-in from the volunteers here. So even though she has the right
to make executive decisions, she's clearly not making them without
consultation. Gris is doing what I, as a board member, intended her to be
able to do when I voted for both the first and the second resolution on
D&I. I have full faith in both her ability to continue doing it, and in
Sam's ability to call Gris to accounts if she slips out of the bounds of
that role.
Best Regards,
Myrle
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:04 PM Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 7/8/2019 12:51 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > "If it didn't happen on the list it didn't happen" does not mean nothing
> can happen in this way, only that decisions are not made without time for
> community feedback and engagement.
> >
> > No problem in this case. Thank you for keeping things moving.
>
> Ross,
>
> The committee not being notified it was happening and not extending the
> invite to others on list is a no-no.
>
> For similar complaints, see Sally's complaint on June 2nd for the
> Hackathon meetings with too little notice for the bridge information on
> planners@. Luckily Rich had emailed about it previously so this was
> just the logistics details and more announcements were made since.
>
> We need to give Gris and others new to Apache correct guidance. Using
> synchronous comms especially meetings without everyone invited are
> pitfalls for a lack of inclusion and definitely not in line with the
> Apache Way.
>
> Regards,
>
> KAM
>
>
Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap from call
w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
On 7/8/2019 12:51 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> "If it didn't happen on the list it didn't happen" does not mean nothing can happen in this way, only that decisions are not made without time for community feedback and engagement.
>
> No problem in this case. Thank you for keeping things moving.
Ross,
The committee not being notified it was happening and not extending the
invite to others on list is a no-no.
For similar complaints, see Sally's complaint on June 2nd for the
Hackathon meetings with too little notice for the bridge information on
planners@. Luckily Rich had emailed about it previously so this was
just the logistics details and more announcements were made since.
We need to give Gris and others new to Apache correct guidance. Using
synchronous comms especially meetings without everyone invited are
pitfalls for a lack of inclusion and definitely not in line with the
Apache Way.
Regards,
KAM
Re: Recap from call w/ Outreachy's team
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com.INVALID>.
Thank you for the notes. "If it didn't happen on the list it didn't happen" does not mean nothing can happen in this way, only that decisions are not made without time for community feedback and engagement.
No problem in this case. Thank you for keeping things moving.
---
Sent from my phone, likely while waking down the stars and having a conversation. Sorry about my carelessness, I blame the machines.
________________________________
From: Griselda Cuevas <gr...@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 4:53:42 PM
To: dev@diversity.apache.org <de...@diversity.apache.org>
Subject: Recap from call w/ Outreachy's team
Hi Folks,
We had a call with the Outreachy team, the following people were present:
- Sage Sharp (Outreachy)
- Karen Sandler (Outreachy)
- Sam Ruby
- David Nalley
- Daniel Ruggeri
- Naomi Slater
The objective of the call was to better understand the order of operations
to establish the ASF as one of Outreachy's communities. Below are the notes
I took and topics we discussed. Let me know if you have any questions.
In terms of next steps, I'll be opening a call for volunteers to find a
Coordinator for the ASF, I'll do this knowing that the vote to give notice
to the board is ongoing[1], the reason is that Sage recommended we did this
in parallel to avoid rushing through upcoming deadlines. I confirmed with
Sam and he concurred.
[1]
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread.html%2F41d8b64938fb5d2fec944202c45fc10de85a242d151b026b84123b87%40%253Cdev.diversity.apache.org%253E&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C6b0a320e011c4eb812a408d703bc7d69%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636981980400586766&sdata=l7m2eIKQhZ9FWQhYGXUmj0V31dKuN%2FkeuwVOzr0IpIM%3D&reserved=0
__________________________________
Notes
[Gris shared context for introduction]
- The ASF recently created a D&I committee, our goal for this year is have
a clear understanding of the current status of D&I
- We're approaching this goal in two fronts: quantitative (we're revamping
our contributor survey) and qualitative (we're doing UX research with new
contributors around their contribution experience)
- We want to align the Outreachy internships with the UX research
methodology
[Discussion started]
- Sage likes the UX approach of this idea (interviews work well), Mozilla
has done some work around this (Emma Irwin)
- Once we kick-off internships, need to ensure we make the distinction,
that questions related to our research are about the interns' experience
with the ASF projects and not Outreachy
- We should connect with the Mozilla folks for knowledge sharing
[Questions about operations]
- An Outreachy Coordinator is the person who does the project vetting &
fund raising
- Recommendation from Karen: Ask the coordinator to do fundraising in
coordination w/ Outreachy through the partners already sponsoring, the
funds go through Outreachy
- From David: It's ok to have 1 coordinator for the ASF
- It's ok to split the sponsorship duties and the project evaluation duties
- Important deadlines: First week of August, We need a coordinator; Sept.
24th, projects need to be submitted
- Funding has until Dec. to get in, we should be fine
Next Steps
- Find a coordinator in parallel to current voting (ask the dev@ list)
- Work on funding from IBM (Sam is on this)
- Start promoting the opportunity to PMCs (this can wait until after the
voting, ideally give 1 mo for this)
Projects are due for Sept 24th (application deadline)