You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@yetus.apache.org by Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> on 2015/09/19 15:47:32 UTC
[DISCUSS] which topics belong on private@yetus
Hi folks!
We need to decide which topics of conversation require being limited to the
PMC on private@yetus.
* security vulnerability reports and handling (per foundation policy since
we don't have security@)
* I'd like any branding requests (like trademark use by third parties) to
go to dev@ unless the sender needs special confidentiality
* discussion and votes on new committers and PMC roles often go to private,
but need not. If folks are interested, I can look for an example community
that does this in public.
What do folks think about the above? In particular, are there folks not
currently on the PMC that can think of topics they'd like to participate in
that might typically and up on private@?
--
Sean
Re: [DISCUSS] which topics belong on private@yetus
Posted by Mark Grover <ma...@apache.org>.
I'd agree with Jarcec on this. I am not on the PMC and don't particularly
see a need based on what I've seen, for something other than private@
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I’ve been one of the initial committers/PMC members on Apache Sentry
> (security related project) where we’ve decided to create security@
> mailing list immediately after inception. Our motivation was that private@
> is limited only to PMC members by “definition" whereas we might want to
> allow committers and other important contributors to sign up for security@.
> Yetus is not a security related project, so I guess that using private@
> for that might make sense. Anyway, I just wanted to share this piece of
> feedback :)
>
> I (not being part of PMC)’m fine with not having committer/PMC discussions
> on dev@. I’m used to those discussion being on private@ from other
> projects :) Otherwise I like the open culture at ASF, so perhaps unless
> it’s somehow sensitive topic it would make sense to discuss all in the open
> on dev@?
>
> Jarcec
>
> > On Sep 19, 2015, at 6:47 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks!
> >
> > We need to decide which topics of conversation require being limited to
> the
> > PMC on private@yetus.
> >
> > * security vulnerability reports and handling (per foundation policy
> since
> > we don't have security@)
> >
> > * I'd like any branding requests (like trademark use by third parties) to
> > go to dev@ unless the sender needs special confidentiality
> >
> > * discussion and votes on new committers and PMC roles often go to
> private,
> > but need not. If folks are interested, I can look for an example
> community
> > that does this in public.
> >
> > What do folks think about the above? In particular, are there folks not
> > currently on the PMC that can think of topics they'd like to participate
> in
> > that might typically and up on private@?
> >
> > --
> > Sean
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] which topics belong on private@yetus
Posted by Jarek Jarcec Cecho <ja...@apache.org>.
I’ve been one of the initial committers/PMC members on Apache Sentry (security related project) where we’ve decided to create security@ mailing list immediately after inception. Our motivation was that private@ is limited only to PMC members by “definition" whereas we might want to allow committers and other important contributors to sign up for security@. Yetus is not a security related project, so I guess that using private@ for that might make sense. Anyway, I just wanted to share this piece of feedback :)
I (not being part of PMC)’m fine with not having committer/PMC discussions on dev@. I’m used to those discussion being on private@ from other projects :) Otherwise I like the open culture at ASF, so perhaps unless it’s somehow sensitive topic it would make sense to discuss all in the open on dev@?
Jarcec
> On Sep 19, 2015, at 6:47 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi folks!
>
> We need to decide which topics of conversation require being limited to the
> PMC on private@yetus.
>
> * security vulnerability reports and handling (per foundation policy since
> we don't have security@)
>
> * I'd like any branding requests (like trademark use by third parties) to
> go to dev@ unless the sender needs special confidentiality
>
> * discussion and votes on new committers and PMC roles often go to private,
> but need not. If folks are interested, I can look for an example community
> that does this in public.
>
> What do folks think about the above? In particular, are there folks not
> currently on the PMC that can think of topics they'd like to participate in
> that might typically and up on private@?
>
> --
> Sean
Re: [DISCUSS] which topics belong on private@yetus
Posted by Chris Nauroth <cn...@hortonworks.com>.
I also would be curious to see an example of committership votes conducted
on a public dev@ list. I suspect (hope) that in a healthy community, this
would have an effect of forcing those discussions to become more civil and
constructive. Maybe I'm naive to think this though. :-)
I can't think of any other specific topics that I'd like to see assigned
to the private@ list by policy. The more we push to the public dev@ list,
the better.
--Chris Nauroth
On 9/19/15, 10:51 PM, "Nick Dimiduk" <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>I'd be curious for an example community who handles discussions re: new
>committers and PMC roles on the dev list. From what I've seen on other
>projects, those conversations benefit from the level of discretion
>afforded
>by having them on the private list.
>
>On Saturday, September 19, 2015, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks!
>>
>> We need to decide which topics of conversation require being limited to
>>the
>> PMC on private@yetus.
>>
>> * security vulnerability reports and handling (per foundation policy
>>since
>> we don't have security@)
>>
>> * I'd like any branding requests (like trademark use by third parties)
>>to
>> go to dev@ unless the sender needs special confidentiality
>>
>> * discussion and votes on new committers and PMC roles often go to
>>private,
>> but need not. If folks are interested, I can look for an example
>>community
>> that does this in public.
>>
>> What do folks think about the above? In particular, are there folks not
>> currently on the PMC that can think of topics they'd like to
>>participate in
>> that might typically and up on private@?
>>
>> --
>> Sean
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] which topics belong on private@yetus
Posted by Chris Nauroth <cn...@hortonworks.com>.
OK, let's go with keeping it on private@, despite my earlier curiosity.
After I sent my email, I thought of another great reason to keep it
private. If it were on public, then it would be easily searchable by
recruiters/hiring managers/etc. who are not ASF members. I'd hate to find
out that a committership discussion impacted someone's employment because
of a hiring manager misinterpreting a no vote as some kind of black mark
on an otherwise good engineer. To someone unfamiliar with how ASF works,
these conversations could be misinterpreted.
--Chris Nauroth
On 9/21/15, 10:46 AM, "Andrew Purtell" <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>+1
>
>Some advocate this as a way to force everyone into using objective
>metrics,
>under the assumption that less principled things happen, but I think the
>drawbacks outweigh that: loss of candid feedback, hurt feelings after
>public criticism, etc.
>
>
>On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Allen Wittenauer <aw...@altiscale.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2015, at 10:51 PM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I'd be curious for an example community who handles discussions re:
>>new
>> > committers and PMC roles on the dev list. From what I've seen on other
>> > projects, those conversations benefit from the level of discretion
>> afforded
>> > by having them on the private list.
>>
>> +1 on that.
>>
>> I don't think it's particularly beneficial weighing (effectively)
>>people's
>> future with a project publicly. The Internet never forgets.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
>Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>(via Tom White)
Re: [DISCUSS] which topics belong on private@yetus
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
+1
Some advocate this as a way to force everyone into using objective metrics,
under the assumption that less principled things happen, but I think the
drawbacks outweigh that: loss of candid feedback, hurt feelings after
public criticism, etc.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Allen Wittenauer <aw...@altiscale.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2015, at 10:51 PM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I'd be curious for an example community who handles discussions re: new
> > committers and PMC roles on the dev list. From what I've seen on other
> > projects, those conversations benefit from the level of discretion
> afforded
> > by having them on the private list.
>
> +1 on that.
>
> I don't think it's particularly beneficial weighing (effectively) people's
> future with a project publicly. The Internet never forgets.
>
>
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: [DISCUSS] which topics belong on private@yetus
Posted by Allen Wittenauer <aw...@altiscale.com>.
On Sep 19, 2015, at 10:51 PM, Nick Dimiduk <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'd be curious for an example community who handles discussions re: new
> committers and PMC roles on the dev list. From what I've seen on other
> projects, those conversations benefit from the level of discretion afforded
> by having them on the private list.
+1 on that.
I don't think it's particularly beneficial weighing (effectively) people's future with a project publicly. The Internet never forgets.
Re: [DISCUSS] which topics belong on private@yetus
Posted by Nick Dimiduk <nd...@apache.org>.
I'd be curious for an example community who handles discussions re: new
committers and PMC roles on the dev list. From what I've seen on other
projects, those conversations benefit from the level of discretion afforded
by having them on the private list.
On Saturday, September 19, 2015, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> We need to decide which topics of conversation require being limited to the
> PMC on private@yetus.
>
> * security vulnerability reports and handling (per foundation policy since
> we don't have security@)
>
> * I'd like any branding requests (like trademark use by third parties) to
> go to dev@ unless the sender needs special confidentiality
>
> * discussion and votes on new committers and PMC roles often go to private,
> but need not. If folks are interested, I can look for an example community
> that does this in public.
>
> What do folks think about the above? In particular, are there folks not
> currently on the PMC that can think of topics they'd like to participate in
> that might typically and up on private@?
>
> --
> Sean
>