You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@community.apache.org by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> on 2019/05/01 11:06:02 UTC
Why should D&I be a president's committee?
When talking about formalizing our D&I effort, there have been essentially
three options under discussion:
* Make it a sub-committee of ComDev.
* Make it a president's committee.
* Make it it's own PMC.
The current proposal is to make it a president's committee.
I'm not sure what the advantages and disadvantages of each approach is.
I'd appreciate your thoughts. What do the powers, freedoms, and
responsibilities of a committee look in each of these alternatives? What
are the advantages and disadvantages with respect to our goals with D&I?
Thanks,
Myrle
(Jim, this is an area you should be able to help us shine a light on, given
your extensive experience at the ASF. You are explicitly invited to
participate.)
Re: Why should D&I be a president's committee?
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 01/05/2019 12:06, Myrle Krantz wrote:
> When talking about formalizing our D&I effort, there have been essentially
> three options under discussion:
>
> * Make it a sub-committee of ComDev.
> * Make it a president's committee.
> * Make it it's own PMC.
>
> The current proposal is to make it a president's committee.
>
> I'm not sure what the advantages and disadvantages of each approach is.
> I'd appreciate your thoughts. What do the powers, freedoms, and
> responsibilities of a committee look in each of these alternatives? What
> are the advantages and disadvantages with respect to our goals with D&I?
From a "Demonstrating the ASF is taking D&I seriously" PoV I think D&I
needs to be on every board agenda. That means it needs to report the
board every month.
Of the options above, only a president's committee meets that criteria.
A board committee would also meet that criteria.
Broadly, responsibilities only vary by reporting process / frequency.
In terms of powers, I think any of the proposed structures above would
provide the necessary authority since part of forming the structure
would involve delegating powers.
A board committee has significantly more power. It can do *anything* the
board can do (it also requires that a board member is on the committee).
I don't think the additional authority is necessary but I do wonder if
reporting directly to the board (rather than through the president)
would enhance the "The ASF is taking D&I seriously" message.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Why should D&I be a president's committee?
Posted by Ross Gardler <ro...@gardler.me>.
As I understand the current D&I committee proposal it does not impact current CoC setup.
If you feel it should/should not then maybe you can provide your thoughts in the form of feedback to Myrle's initial question here. If you don't have an opinion yet maybe consider asking the proposed VP D&I and the volunteers on the diversity list for their thoughts.
Ross
________________________________________
From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 8:23 AM
To: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why should D&I be a president's committee?
Hi Ross,
Forgive me if this opens up the subject more than needed, but I have a question.
How do you view this new Diversity & Inclusion committee with respect to the code of conduct and https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apache.org%2Ffoundation%2Fpolicies%2Fconduct%23reporting-guidelines&data=02%7C01%7C%7C72419fb14e8c4659a9ec08d6ce4915f6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636923210621821512&sdata=QlG6eMuv0Yp9bMB0vDSIwg%2BI3VstBHLEoXfKLj5bhVQ%3D&reserved=0 where a list of contacts are provided.
Is the new D&I committee meant to be separate from reporting/“enforcement” or not? Your arguments around legal situations involving law enforcement potentially implies a mixing of policy evaluation and enforcement.
Regards,
Dave
> On May 1, 2019, at 7:31 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Good points so far. One that I believe has been missed...
>
> Board committees have 9 bosses. PMCs have potentially many more. Presidents committees have 1.
>
> In other words, a Presidents committee can get things done more quickly in difficult or controversial spaces, especially in things that do not present a binary correct/incorrect set of choices.
>
> As noted by others there is significant oversight from the board via monthly reports. Plenty of opportunity for course correction as result. Any objection by any one of the nine is dealt with by President, allowing the committee to get on with their work within the boundaries agreed with the president.
>
> This requires a level of trust in the President, and their delegates.
>
> Ross
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fghei36&data=02%7C01%7C%7C72419fb14e8c4659a9ec08d6ce4915f6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636923210621831523&sdata=gnWoQ%2F1j2s0538XLcsoYlFn5ZX9%2BkTKRsC4Sam03FVg%3D&reserved=0>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 6:23:34 AM
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Why should D&I be a president's committee?
>
> The most important question is: where do the people who are currently
> most active doing the real work of the survey and organizing
> informational materials on diversity@ want to do that work? Ensuring
> they have a productive space and framework to work is the first thing to
> solve. That said...
>
> Myrle Krantz wrote on 5/1/19 7:06 AM:
> ...snip...
>> * Make it a sub-committee of ComDev.
>
> This is nothing more than a page on community.a.o and the diversity@
> mailing list. We already effectively have that. The only difference
> would be having a formal page on the website that lists who's there,
> essentially copying what we've done in the mailing list.
>
> In terms of powers, none in particular. Membership changes by the PMC
> voting in new PMC members (or allowing committers to participate, etc.)
> Reports would be part of the quarterly ComDev report.
>
>> * Make it a president's committee.
>
> The proposal is to also name a VP of that committee as well. The VP is
> an officer, and can perform duties for the ASF within the scope of
> whatever charter the board originally creates the VP officer with.
>
> Historically, we've had the board create *new VP roles* with a title and
> description, and appoint the first person to that role. For President's
> committees and other VPs reporting to the President, we've had the
> President thereafter simply make new appointments to existing roles
> directly (always reported in board reports).
>
> President's committees can be changed by the President at any point, or
> by the VP in charge if specifically authorized to do so. Also, since
> President's committees are mostly about operations, we have examples of
> officers like this having regular annual budgets and signing authority.
>
> They cannot release software (publicly). They could have a separate
> website and mailing lists. President's committees report monthly.
>
>> * Make it it's own PMC.
>
> This requires a normal board resolution, and would act like any other
> PMC, especially in terms of managing PMC or committer membership. We've
> done straight-to-PMC before (i.e. not going through Incubation), it just
> needs the scope description of the PMC and the list of VP and members.
>
> They could release software and all the usual PMC things, and they
> report to the board quarterly.
>
> ----
>
> Elsethread, Mark also mentioned a board committee. They have the powers
> of the board. Changing board committees (normally) takes a board
> resolution, meaning it takes more time to add/remove people. They
> report monthly to the board.
>
> While President's committees have a broad scope of operations, often
> looking across the whole ASF, they do not have direct power to generally
> set policies across other projects. Board committees, on the other
> hand, could directly enact and enforce policies across projects.
>
> ----
>
> Personally, I'm +1 for a President's committee. Right now, we need a
> place where people actively doing productive work can do so.
> President's committees provide plenty of oversight and monthly
> reporting. A lot of the work will be gathering data and creating solid
> materials that projects or other officers can choose to use to help
> improve our communities, or doing their own direct outreach at
> conferences or the like. Those are all things well suited to a
> President's committee with a named VP.
>
>
> --
>
> - Shane
> Director & Member
> The Apache Software Foundation
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Why should D&I be a president's committee?
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi Ross,
Forgive me if this opens up the subject more than needed, but I have a question.
How do you view this new Diversity & Inclusion committee with respect to the code of conduct and https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct#reporting-guidelines where a list of contacts are provided.
Is the new D&I committee meant to be separate from reporting/“enforcement” or not? Your arguments around legal situations involving law enforcement potentially implies a mixing of policy evaluation and enforcement.
Regards,
Dave
> On May 1, 2019, at 7:31 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Good points so far. One that I believe has been missed...
>
> Board committees have 9 bosses. PMCs have potentially many more. Presidents committees have 1.
>
> In other words, a Presidents committee can get things done more quickly in difficult or controversial spaces, especially in things that do not present a binary correct/incorrect set of choices.
>
> As noted by others there is significant oversight from the board via monthly reports. Plenty of opportunity for course correction as result. Any objection by any one of the nine is dealt with by President, allowing the committee to get on with their work within the boundaries agreed with the president.
>
> This requires a level of trust in the President, and their delegates.
>
> Ross
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 6:23:34 AM
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Why should D&I be a president's committee?
>
> The most important question is: where do the people who are currently
> most active doing the real work of the survey and organizing
> informational materials on diversity@ want to do that work? Ensuring
> they have a productive space and framework to work is the first thing to
> solve. That said...
>
> Myrle Krantz wrote on 5/1/19 7:06 AM:
> ...snip...
>> * Make it a sub-committee of ComDev.
>
> This is nothing more than a page on community.a.o and the diversity@
> mailing list. We already effectively have that. The only difference
> would be having a formal page on the website that lists who's there,
> essentially copying what we've done in the mailing list.
>
> In terms of powers, none in particular. Membership changes by the PMC
> voting in new PMC members (or allowing committers to participate, etc.)
> Reports would be part of the quarterly ComDev report.
>
>> * Make it a president's committee.
>
> The proposal is to also name a VP of that committee as well. The VP is
> an officer, and can perform duties for the ASF within the scope of
> whatever charter the board originally creates the VP officer with.
>
> Historically, we've had the board create *new VP roles* with a title and
> description, and appoint the first person to that role. For President's
> committees and other VPs reporting to the President, we've had the
> President thereafter simply make new appointments to existing roles
> directly (always reported in board reports).
>
> President's committees can be changed by the President at any point, or
> by the VP in charge if specifically authorized to do so. Also, since
> President's committees are mostly about operations, we have examples of
> officers like this having regular annual budgets and signing authority.
>
> They cannot release software (publicly). They could have a separate
> website and mailing lists. President's committees report monthly.
>
>> * Make it it's own PMC.
>
> This requires a normal board resolution, and would act like any other
> PMC, especially in terms of managing PMC or committer membership. We've
> done straight-to-PMC before (i.e. not going through Incubation), it just
> needs the scope description of the PMC and the list of VP and members.
>
> They could release software and all the usual PMC things, and they
> report to the board quarterly.
>
> ----
>
> Elsethread, Mark also mentioned a board committee. They have the powers
> of the board. Changing board committees (normally) takes a board
> resolution, meaning it takes more time to add/remove people. They
> report monthly to the board.
>
> While President's committees have a broad scope of operations, often
> looking across the whole ASF, they do not have direct power to generally
> set policies across other projects. Board committees, on the other
> hand, could directly enact and enforce policies across projects.
>
> ----
>
> Personally, I'm +1 for a President's committee. Right now, we need a
> place where people actively doing productive work can do so.
> President's committees provide plenty of oversight and monthly
> reporting. A lot of the work will be gathering data and creating solid
> materials that projects or other officers can choose to use to help
> improve our communities, or doing their own direct outreach at
> conferences or the like. Those are all things well suited to a
> President's committee with a named VP.
>
>
> --
>
> - Shane
> Director & Member
> The Apache Software Foundation
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Why should D&I be a president's committee?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@outlook.com>.
Good points so far. One that I believe has been missed...
Board committees have 9 bosses. PMCs have potentially many more. Presidents committees have 1.
In other words, a Presidents committee can get things done more quickly in difficult or controversial spaces, especially in things that do not present a binary correct/incorrect set of choices.
As noted by others there is significant oversight from the board via monthly reports. Plenty of opportunity for course correction as result. Any objection by any one of the nine is dealt with by President, allowing the committee to get on with their work within the boundaries agreed with the president.
This requires a level of trust in the President, and their delegates.
Ross
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 6:23:34 AM
To: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why should D&I be a president's committee?
The most important question is: where do the people who are currently
most active doing the real work of the survey and organizing
informational materials on diversity@ want to do that work? Ensuring
they have a productive space and framework to work is the first thing to
solve. That said...
Myrle Krantz wrote on 5/1/19 7:06 AM:
...snip...
> * Make it a sub-committee of ComDev.
This is nothing more than a page on community.a.o and the diversity@
mailing list. We already effectively have that. The only difference
would be having a formal page on the website that lists who's there,
essentially copying what we've done in the mailing list.
In terms of powers, none in particular. Membership changes by the PMC
voting in new PMC members (or allowing committers to participate, etc.)
Reports would be part of the quarterly ComDev report.
> * Make it a president's committee.
The proposal is to also name a VP of that committee as well. The VP is
an officer, and can perform duties for the ASF within the scope of
whatever charter the board originally creates the VP officer with.
Historically, we've had the board create *new VP roles* with a title and
description, and appoint the first person to that role. For President's
committees and other VPs reporting to the President, we've had the
President thereafter simply make new appointments to existing roles
directly (always reported in board reports).
President's committees can be changed by the President at any point, or
by the VP in charge if specifically authorized to do so. Also, since
President's committees are mostly about operations, we have examples of
officers like this having regular annual budgets and signing authority.
They cannot release software (publicly). They could have a separate
website and mailing lists. President's committees report monthly.
> * Make it it's own PMC.
This requires a normal board resolution, and would act like any other
PMC, especially in terms of managing PMC or committer membership. We've
done straight-to-PMC before (i.e. not going through Incubation), it just
needs the scope description of the PMC and the list of VP and members.
They could release software and all the usual PMC things, and they
report to the board quarterly.
----
Elsethread, Mark also mentioned a board committee. They have the powers
of the board. Changing board committees (normally) takes a board
resolution, meaning it takes more time to add/remove people. They
report monthly to the board.
While President's committees have a broad scope of operations, often
looking across the whole ASF, they do not have direct power to generally
set policies across other projects. Board committees, on the other
hand, could directly enact and enforce policies across projects.
----
Personally, I'm +1 for a President's committee. Right now, we need a
place where people actively doing productive work can do so.
President's committees provide plenty of oversight and monthly
reporting. A lot of the work will be gathering data and creating solid
materials that projects or other officers can choose to use to help
improve our communities, or doing their own direct outreach at
conferences or the like. Those are all things well suited to a
President's committee with a named VP.
--
- Shane
Director & Member
The Apache Software Foundation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Why should D&I be a president's committee?
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
The most important question is: where do the people who are currently
most active doing the real work of the survey and organizing
informational materials on diversity@ want to do that work? Ensuring
they have a productive space and framework to work is the first thing to
solve. That said...
Myrle Krantz wrote on 5/1/19 7:06 AM:
...snip...
> * Make it a sub-committee of ComDev.
This is nothing more than a page on community.a.o and the diversity@
mailing list. We already effectively have that. The only difference
would be having a formal page on the website that lists who's there,
essentially copying what we've done in the mailing list.
In terms of powers, none in particular. Membership changes by the PMC
voting in new PMC members (or allowing committers to participate, etc.)
Reports would be part of the quarterly ComDev report.
> * Make it a president's committee.
The proposal is to also name a VP of that committee as well. The VP is
an officer, and can perform duties for the ASF within the scope of
whatever charter the board originally creates the VP officer with.
Historically, we've had the board create *new VP roles* with a title and
description, and appoint the first person to that role. For President's
committees and other VPs reporting to the President, we've had the
President thereafter simply make new appointments to existing roles
directly (always reported in board reports).
President's committees can be changed by the President at any point, or
by the VP in charge if specifically authorized to do so. Also, since
President's committees are mostly about operations, we have examples of
officers like this having regular annual budgets and signing authority.
They cannot release software (publicly). They could have a separate
website and mailing lists. President's committees report monthly.
> * Make it it's own PMC.
This requires a normal board resolution, and would act like any other
PMC, especially in terms of managing PMC or committer membership. We've
done straight-to-PMC before (i.e. not going through Incubation), it just
needs the scope description of the PMC and the list of VP and members.
They could release software and all the usual PMC things, and they
report to the board quarterly.
----
Elsethread, Mark also mentioned a board committee. They have the powers
of the board. Changing board committees (normally) takes a board
resolution, meaning it takes more time to add/remove people. They
report monthly to the board.
While President's committees have a broad scope of operations, often
looking across the whole ASF, they do not have direct power to generally
set policies across other projects. Board committees, on the other
hand, could directly enact and enforce policies across projects.
----
Personally, I'm +1 for a President's committee. Right now, we need a
place where people actively doing productive work can do so.
President's committees provide plenty of oversight and monthly
reporting. A lot of the work will be gathering data and creating solid
materials that projects or other officers can choose to use to help
improve our communities, or doing their own direct outreach at
conferences or the like. Those are all things well suited to a
President's committee with a named VP.
--
- Shane
Director & Member
The Apache Software Foundation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Why should D&I be a president's committee?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On May 1, 2019, at 7:06 AM, Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> (Jim, this is an area you should be able to help us shine a light on, given
> your extensive experience at the ASF. You are explicitly invited to
> participate.)
Thx for the invite but I know that any input I'd provide to be moot.
Cheers!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org