Re: [proposal] integrating womAn@a.o into an Apache code of practice

[Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a....@gmail.com>]

ARCHIVAL NOTE ONLY as at 28 days since inception of this proposal - please
find possibly related posts and continuing public conversations, in
chronological order from 30 July 2010, under the following women@a.o and/or
dev@community.a.o threads with subject header:

   1. [VOTE] roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o
   2. Contributing positively to a meritocracy (was Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE]
   roll women@a.o into dev@community.a.o)
   3. Code of Conduct
   4. DRAFT board report
   5. Presentations
   6. Consensus process

Private conversations have also continued and are here kindly acknowledged.

Further, for the record at this stage, it is carefully noted that this
continuing proposal does *not* appear on the Status report for the Apache
Community Development Project, dated Wed 11 August 2010, under subject
header "[REPORT] Community Development", for reasons yet to be openly
ascertained.


On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Anjana G Bhattacharjee <
a.g.bhattacharjee@gmail.com> wrote:

> 20100722 / APORIA WORK / XIIX
>
> PROPOSAL SUMMARY
>
> Previously at Apache, we have had a list named "women@a.o" that both men
> and women have posted and subscribed to at varying degrees of overt
> participation.
>
> Now, personally would like to propose having a single email address, to be
> named "womAn@apache.org" that can be used by both men and women to make a
> post.
>
> This email address would ostensibly be assigned to one person, e.g. me, to
> start with, and once a working technical specification has been agreed, if
> possible, all other persons would be able to invoke use of it in any
> situation where he/she/they sees fit and/or where he/she/they may find it
> preferable to disclosing their usual email address at the time of use,
> albeit in good faith.
>
> All posts that use this facility, subject to technical feasibility, can
> then be queried in digest form and reviewed periodically together with
> access to a limited context for each instance of use in order to be able to
> gauge its usefulness, mysteriousness, and/or otherwise for any reason
> whatsoever, as the case may turn out to be.
>
> PROPOSAL FEATURES AND BENEFITS (1-18)
>
>    1. The Prime Mover, e.g. me, is assigned the womAn@a.o as their email
>    address.
>    2. The email address can then be used by any list member to post to any
>    list to which he/she/they may be subscribed as a current list member, by way
>    of an alternative option to using their usual - and known - subscriber's
>    email address, as if to be wearing the womAn@a.o hat so to speak, for
>    that specific instance of use.
>    3. The Prime Mover can only verify their own posts, and so all other
>    posts appearing on lists bearing the email address womAn@a.o are
>    anonymous to the Prime Mover. Similarly, any other person using this email
>    address can only verify their own posts, and in this sense, it may be
>    advisable for persons to keep a personal archive of their posts should
>    questions of validity arise in due course, albeit this is not compulsory.
>    4. Any person can request a digest of all instances of use of the email
>    address womAn@a.o in limited context for the lists for which
>    he/she/they are legitimately subscribed to only. For example, the Prime
>    Mover, e.g. me, may not be able to request a digest for private lists in the
>    event that subscription approval is pending. As such, it is encouraged that
>    each list learn to collaboratively digest their own digests, so that the
>    Prime Mover can move on in due course.
>    5. When an incident arises that may be of possible note in the public
>    interest, the matter may be suggested as a possible topic for discussion on
>    the dev@community.a.o list, or any other such list that may be set up
>    to accommodate such "womAn"-specific discussion should this be preferred.
>    6. The Prime Mover may offer summary observations at periodic intervals
>    to the designated discussion list, at his/her/their sole discretion.
>    7. As the use of the email address womAn@a.o becomes a trusted option
>    for those persons that find uses for it, in whatever way, shape, or form,
>    this inventive code-of-practice may be considered for productization.
>    8. As a possible product, implementing a womAn@a.n.other facility (as
>    distinct from a service) could pave the way for fee-based consultancy
>    services. Demand for consultancy is initially directed toward the Prime
>    Mover in order to pull together a relevant team at his/her/their discretion.
>    This is where a person who has been actively using the womAn@a.ofacility may wish to verify his/her/their role in specific instances in
>    order to validate his/her/their portfolio of experiences when offering to
>    join the team of consultants that then get employed externally.
>    9. 10% of any income generated by providing the impetus for any such
>    derivative employment, if any, will be held in a common womAn@a.o Trust
>    Fund (WTF).
>    10. The cash accrued in the WTF, to the aporia-alogoritmic sum of X,
>    will first be used as prize monies for an inaugral mixed-match Golf
>    tournament to be offered as a BarCamp activity during the Vancover 2011
>    meeting, with competitions designed for both proficient players and
>    non-players alike [2], in order to celebrate the diversity of inclusive
>    forms of valuing participation which in turn can serve to widen forms of
>    participating in our meritocracy, perhaps.
>    11. Each team entering the womAn@a.o Golf Tournament (WGT) pays a blind
>    donation based on his/her/their ability to pay. For example, Labs [3] may
>    enter a team which is sponsored by Labs for which Labs collectively attracts
>    external sponsorship in addition which they collectively donate as a group,
>    or alternatively, Labs may prefer that individuals from Labs donate
>    individually as per their underlying work ethic perhaps, all other things
>    being equal. Friends/family/guests may also be invited by team members to
>    play on their team, and/or support their team by caddying/spectating/whatev
>    - i.e. the point is not so much to compete, but to play at our leisure.
>    12. Any monies raised by the variable fees in total is donated to the
>    On Course Foundation [1].
>    13. Any monies that have been generated through the merchandising of
>    the womAn@a.o brand up to and including the day of the WGT, if any, is
>    also donated to the On Course Foundation on this inaugral occasion.
>    14. womAn@a.n.other company merchandising may be granted under licence
>    to clients of any derivative consultancy services with any monies accruing
>    to the WTF, if any.
>    15. If the WTF continues to grow beyond the inaugral WGF in Vancouver
>    2011, then as soon as the surplus funds reach the aporia-algorithmic sum of
>    X, payment of X will be made to the Prime Mover, i.e. me, for the
>    origination of this idea. If the funds continue to grow beyond the sum of X,
>    as soon as it has reached a sum of X again, this may be divided into 10
>    equal shares to be distributed amongst the 10 trustees of the WTF. Nine
>    founding trusteeships of the WTF will initially be offered to all those who
>    posted a vote with regards to womAn@a.o's previous incarnation as the
>    women@a.o list, plus a tenth to be offered by way of Honorary Chair to
>    Denise (as is the Prime Mover's, i.e. my own, preference with all due
>    respect)
>    16. Beyond such one off payments being made, primarily for the purposes
>    of demonstrating the aporia-algorithmic sum of X in practice, the WTF can be
>    used for a next round of iterative development if needs be.
>    17. Alternatively and/or additionally, the proposed integration of
>    womAn@a.o into an Apache code of practice may be deemed a success for
>    all Apache intents and purposes and the womAn@a.o project is archived
>    for open educational purposes, together with any documentation generated by
>    any derivative employment undertaken subject to client agreement. In this
>    sense, it is anticipated that the technical aspects of implementing a
>    womAn@a.n.other client may necessarily require a bespoke implementation
>    confidential to the clients own email system in some cases. However, it may
>    be that some technical aspects of the womAn@a.o orginal may be
>    packageable into a FLOSS offering in the first instance. In the second
>    instance, clients that wish to go it alone based on the possible richness of
>    their own existing codes of practices would be encouraged to do so, with
>    possible scholarly peer review services rather than a full set of
>    consultancy services being offered as a more affordable alternative in due
>    course, albeit this may not be available from the outset whilst capacity
>    building for such possible service provision remains in scholarly
>    incubation.
>    18. Irrespective of whether or not the womAn@a.o facility can be
>    productized at any stage, it is hoped that our inaugral womAn@a.o Golf
>    Tournament can become a growing annual and inclusive offering, at least
>    until 2016 when Golf is due to feature as an Olympic sport for the first
>    time. As such, it is hoped that our efforts at understanding possibly
>    different inclusive codes of practice, as against otherwise exclusive codes,
>    can continue to deepen, not only across genders, but also across
>    generations, cultures, and the differently-abled living beings that we might
>    happen to be. Further, it is hoped that our interaction with the On Course
>    Foundation can inspire its membership to be open to including all
>    nationalities without borders, i.e. not just across the UK and US as at
>    present, at pace with our own efforts, if not faster, in the full spirit of
>    free as in liberty, not just free as in beer.
>
> [1] http://www.oncoursefoundation.com/
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variations_of_golf
> [3] labs.apache.org
>
> All rights are reserved generally
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [proposal] integrating womAn@a.o into an Apache code of practice

[Anjana G Bhattacharjee <a....@gmail.com>]

Hi Kathey,

Good to hear from you :-)

Let me try stepping through the issues you raise in turn below at this
stage, with a view to keeping all options open, as ever, in due course:

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Kathey Marsden <kmarsdenderby@sbcglobal.net
> wrote:

>  On 8/19/2010 1:00 AM, Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
>
>> ARCHIVAL NOTE ONLY as at 28 days since inception of this proposal -
>>
> My vote on this proposal if brought to vote would be
>

"if brought to vote" is certainly a good caveat to bear in mind IMHO,
particularly as there may be a handful of alternative voting mechanisms that
may apply in this case, notwithstanding the parameters usually applied by
the Apache community when awarding <member>@a.o email addresses as a "status
address" in and of itself


> -1
> Because
> - Golf and the other aspects of the proposal have  nothing to do with
> software.
> - The structure is ungoverned  and falls totally outside of the Apache pmc
> structure and seems to involve some sort of monarch (the Prime Mover).
> -  it is involves money unnecessarily, which is never a good idea.
> - it is extremely complex, which is also never a good idea.
> - I thought it was some sort of joke that I didn't understand and I guess I
> was mistaken. Although I am not very smart, I think others might also find
> it difficult to understand how  a Prime Mover, golf and a WTF fund have any
> relevance to the Apache Software Foundation.
>

It may be helpful to turn each of these points of opinion into a question at
this proposal stage in order to facilitate discussion - for example:

- what does golf have to do with software?
- what do other aspects of the proposal have to do with software?
(specifying which "other aspects")
- how is the structure governed, if at all?
- does the structure fall outside the Apache PMC structure?
- does the structure involve some sort of a monarch?
- is it necessary to involve money?
- is it complex?
- is it some sort of joke?
- are others finding it difficult to understand "how  a Prime Mover, golf
and WTF fund have any relevance to the Apache Software Foundation"

In particular, some of these questions may have been answered already - e.g.
see ARCHIVAL NOTE dated 19 Aug 2010 under this thread for related
interactions and links to cited references - whilst others may best be left
open to question, for the time being at least, with a view to compiling a
project FAQ in due course ;-)


> The valid point to the proposal is that sometimes a less public address is
> needed for  reporting problems, especially misconduct.   I think we can
> accommodate such complaints in the existing private lists. e.g.
>  Problem with a specific project, you can send to private@<project>.a.o,
> problem with a PMC or PMC  member, you can send to private@community.a.o,
> problem with a community PMC member or board member, talk to a board member
> you trust.  There is also legal-internal if you think some law was broken.
>  Documenting such an escalation procedure, I think is a good idea and
>  should be plenty to satisfy this concern.
>

Thank you for specifically drawing out this point in a further detail - so,
how might existing procedures fair with the expectations of those involved
in and/or considering involvement in the emerging "formal" mentoring
programme? For example, are the recepients of these "private" addresses
actually named individuals in relation to any third party institutional
checks and balances already in place? And have such procedures been agreed
as per funding provision for the duration of the EU-supported programme at
least?


>
> Back to fixing bugs for me....  I invite you again to join that effort.


Bug fixing no doubt crops up in all shapes and guises -


>  After contributing to the foundation for a while and seeing how it works
> [1], you can obtain sufficient merit to have an influence.  I think after
> you do, you will realize this proposal is not appropriate for the ASF.
>

- for example, there appears to be at least one perenniel "bug" rampent in
the form of (unofficial?) meritocracy you here describe AFAIK - our best
beloved Wikipedia article on "meritocracy" has flagged the Apache Software
Foundation as "an example of an (open source) organization which officially
claims to be a meritocracy" for some years already [1] - but then, perhaps
this is a matter for currently serving Board members to clarify further at
this stage, as the thread on Presentations has already invited.

Of course, the "bugs" in the consensus process may not be entirely unrelated
- but maybe that's a task best left to a womAn@a.o ;-)


>
> Kathey
>
> [1] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
>
>
>
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

Re: [proposal] integrating womAn@a.o into an Apache code of practice

[Kathey Marsden <km...@sbcglobal.net>]

  On 8/19/2010 1:00 AM, Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
> ARCHIVAL NOTE ONLY as at 28 days since inception of this proposal -
My vote on this proposal if brought to vote would be
-1
Because
- Golf and the other aspects of the proposal have  nothing to do with 
software.
- The structure is ungoverned  and falls totally outside of the Apache 
pmc structure and seems to involve some sort of monarch (the Prime Mover).
-  it is involves money unnecessarily, which is never a good idea.
- it is extremely complex, which is also never a good idea.
- I thought it was some sort of joke that I didn't understand and I 
guess I was mistaken. Although I am not very smart, I think others might 
also find it difficult to understand how  a Prime Mover, golf and a WTF 
fund have any relevance to the Apache Software Foundation.

The valid point to the proposal is that sometimes a less public address 
is needed for  reporting problems, especially misconduct.   I think we 
can accommodate such complaints in the existing private lists. e.g.
   Problem with a specific project, you can send to 
private@<project>.a.o, problem with a PMC or PMC  member, you can send 
to private@community.a.o, problem with a community PMC member or board 
member, talk to a board member you trust.  There is also legal-internal 
if you think some law was broken.  Documenting such an escalation 
procedure, I think is a good idea and  should be plenty to satisfy this 
concern.

Back to fixing bugs for me....  I invite you again to join that effort.  
After contributing to the foundation for a while and seeing how it works 
[1], you can obtain sufficient merit to have an influence.  I think 
after you do, you will realize this proposal is not appropriate for the ASF.

Kathey

[1] http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html