You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to community@apache.org by Ben Hyde <bh...@pobox.com> on 2003/10/22 14:57:06 UTC
The board is not responsible!
> Isn't the ASF Board ultimately responsible
This is just wrong. Responsibility lies with the individual
commiters, members, and their associated project PMCs. This is the
modern world, there are no kings any more. Different institutions are
responsible for different aspects of the whole ball of wax. In corp.
governance, and hence in the ASF the responsibility of boards is _very_
circumscribed.
Don't look to the board as some kind of overriding lever on the
foundation's control board. It's not the master tiller of the ASF
boat. Each PMC is it's own boat in the water. The board's only
function is to fufill legally required oversight that assures we do not
go so far off course as to run aground on some illegal activity or some
sand bar outside our charter/principles/mission. Those obstacles to
navigation circumscribe the perimeter of a very big sea. All activity
within that pond is your responsibility.
The board exists only because we have to have a governing structure
that matched the expectation of the law. All boards are responsible
only for oversight. They are like an auditor. They are not
responsible for execution. The law intentionally partitions
responsibly for execution from the oversight responsibility. The case
law is clear that if execution and board functions merge then that is
bad. The case law is also clear that as long as boards do the
oversight all manner of lousy inane bizarre execution can take place
and they aren't liable.
I am not a lawyer. So all this should be taken with a grain of salt.
But, when I was on the board I did take the time to read a few books on
what my responsibilities were. Bear in mind - particularly when the
board is being a pest about PMC status reports - that the board is
personally liable for failing to do the oversight job.
In the ASF the PMC play the role of managers. The PMC are ultimately
responsible. The board sees to it that the PMC keep the board notified
of their activities. They do this so that they can fulfill their
responsibility for to assure that the PMC are in fact fulfilling the
ASF's charter.
Now if you want the board to change the shape of the pond? For example
if you wanted to force an ASF wide policy about committer/member ratio
on projects say. You could advocate to them for that. You could, via
the members, elect board members who would work to shape the pond to
your desires.
But these are, intentionally, blunt and difficult to weld ways to
change how things are going. The way the ASF encourages is to work
directly, with a bias for action, thru the projects.
Any attempt to appeal to the authority of the board for more than that
is likely to lead to nothing but frustration for the petitioners. It
is the job of the PMC to manage their own house. If you wish to appeal
to some authority, as versus take the bull by the horns directly, then
one or another PMC is the place to look. If your not satisfied with
the outcome then you need to look to how your PMC is elected or
structured.
We have worked hard to assure that we don't get drawn into the trap of
having some sort of elite who's authority trumps all others. I doubt
that encouraging the board to become that elite is a good idea. I
doubt they are likely to take the job - no matter how often people
offer it to them. Feel free to call them on it if you notice them
trending in that direction.
This is by design: Don't go looking for da man. He is nowhere. He is
you!
- ben
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: ML Config (Re: Press PR)
Posted by Tetsuya Kitahata <te...@apache.org>.
> At least,
> projects@incubator.apache.org and
> jaxme@ws.apache.org
> have wrong configurations.
jaxme@ws.apache.org
=>
jaxme-dev@ws.apache.org
... :-)
-- Tetsuya. (tetsuya@apache.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: ML Config (Re: Press PR)
Posted by Tetsuya Kitahata <te...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 23:57:19 +0100
"Sander Striker" <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> > The owners of those lists (the Incubator and WS PMCs respectively) can
> > request a change to infrastructure@. An alternative would be for them to
> > submit a bug report against the infrastructure project via bugzilla.
> Or drop a line to apmail@. Or, in case of Incubator, take care of
> it themselves, since there are plenty of people there with apmail
> access. Which kind of tends me to ask what exactly is 'wrong'.
Okeydokey, I dropped and created a message on Bugzilla (infra).
projects@incubator.apache.org issue has already discussed and
the owner/moderator (Nicola) said that it had wrong config.
Thanks a ton.
-- Tetsuya <te...@apache.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: ML Config (Re: Press PR)
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 11:53 PM
> > At least, projects@incubator.apache.org and
> > jaxme-dev@ws.apache.org have wrong configurations.
>
> > Please fix and notify it of the participants of
> > these mailing lists after that.
>
> The owners of those lists (the Incubator and WS PMCs respectively) can
> request a change to infrastructure@. An alternative would be for them to
> submit a bug report against the infrastructure project via bugzilla.
Or drop a line to apmail@. Or, in case of Incubator, take care of
it themselves, since there are plenty of people there with apmail
access. Which kind of tends me to ask what exactly is 'wrong'.
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: ML Config (Re: Press PR)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> At least, projects@incubator.apache.org and
> jaxme-dev@ws.apache.org have wrong configurations.
> Please fix and notify it of the participants of
> these mailing lists after that.
The owners of those lists (the Incubator and WS PMCs respectively) can
request a change to infrastructure@. An alternative would be for them to
submit a bug report against the infrastructure project via bugzilla.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
ML Config (Re: Press PR)
Posted by Tetsuya Kitahata <te...@apache.org>.
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 01:11:12 -0400
"Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Your example of Reply-To sounds like like a mistake in implementation that
> of policy. Mistakes happen. If there is an error in the setup instructions
> or scripts, that can be fixed.
Good point. People can not judge whether XX is/was derived from
someone's "mistake"s or someone's "intention"s.
At least,
projects@incubator.apache.org and
jaxme@ws.apache.org
have wrong configurations.
Please fix and notify it of the participants of
these mailing lists after that.
Again, people can not judge whether it is just "mistake" or
"intentional" ( = whether by accident or by design).
This is a *serious* issue, I am sure.
-- Tetsuya. (tetsuya@apache.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 12:11:16PM +0900, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
> keen eyes to exact infrastructural issues and "not to omit important
> mails coming to infra@ and root@".
I'm sorry, but what emails have been omitted? Please don't ascribe to
malice what can be explained by lack of time. The people on the other
side of the curtain are human beings (and unpaid volunteers at that).
So, if you don't receive a response, it'd be helpful to resend any
messages. Regardless of what some people think, we're not completely
evil bastards.
> As for mailing lists maintainance, I think "Communication" Committee
> would fit to that task as well as infrastructure committee.
> AAMOF, when I subscribed to some mailing lists, I got stunned
> at seeing the fact that some mailing lists accepted spam mails.
At one time, I believe this was *intentional* when it was created. All
postings were supposed to go through. Now, with the amount of spam,
it's possible that wasn't the greatest of ideas. Has anyone sent email
to apmail@ asking for it to be changed? (Realize that few apmail@
people read community@.)
> what I often see at the new mailing lists are the omit of
> "Reply-To:" Header. I do not think it would be acceptable
> diversity. "Communication" Committee can establish such a policy.
There are *lots* of reasons not to set the Reply-To header (aka Reply-To
munging). The current ASF policy is to let each mailing list decide if
it should be set. I think you want to centralize policy across the ASF
for things that need not be centralized.
I really believe that the participants on the project should set the
policy. They can ask for recommendations, sure. But, infrastructure@
has taken the policy on some things to *not* set policy. The
responsibility that comes with 'power' (such as it is) is to know when
not to wield it.
> Maintanance of "site" is not "infrastructural" one. Rather, public
> relations. Establishing webmaster@apache.org and FWing the mails
> coming to such address to PR committee would suffice. The same goes
> for apache@apache
Again, you've overlooked the statement that infrastructure@ has asked on
several occassions for these to be forwarded to a group and it was
rejected each time. Have you bothered to ask the person who is running
apache@apache.org and webmaster@apache.org if they want to share? Every
time we've asked, we've gotten a very strong no.
I disagree that there is such a clamor to maintain 'site' that it needs
a separate committee on its own. All ASF members already have access by
default, and karma can be granted upon demand if you ask nicely.
> For example, see http://maven.apache.org/ Anyone would think that
> maven is now under "jakarta" (see the logo). I do not think such
> impressions would be good for the asf as a whole. Who would watch
> these kinds of things? .... infrastructure? .. NO, PR committee.
Uh, the Maven PMC? The board or infrastructure or any committee
shouldn't be telling Maven what's good for them. The people who
contribute to Maven get the ability to design their website.
The only responsibility of the board is to make sure there isn't
anything that legally endangers the ASF, and infrastructure makes sure
the server is serving pages correctly. But, the content is solely the
responsibility of Maven PMC and its committers.
> PR and Communication committees should keep good relations with each
> committers/members/developers. The ultimate goal would be
> "improvements of (user|member|committer|developer)-friendliness"
And, let me ask a more pivotal question:
Who is going to staff this committee?
Do you really think that there is a great untapped resource that hasn't
been found of people willing to do this? If so, what is preventing them
from doing these tasks already?
My answers are: no and nothing.
I honestly don't see a need to create more overhead. The committees we
already have are under-represented anyway. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agsoftware.dnsalias.com>.
Noel J. Bergman dijo:
>> Is there any reason we don't run something like Spam Assassin
>
> We do have anti-spam filters. The problem is balancing false positives
> against spam. The bias has been against false positives. I've no doubt
> that more can, and will, be done in the future.
This is a very interesting area.
I think we can request a donation from NAI for a SpamKillerAppliance:
http://www.nai.com/us/products/mcafee/antispam/spk_appliances.htm
They use our Apache Tomcat inside, so a giving back to the ASF will be
fair :-D
Is this viable?
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net>.
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >>when I subscribed to some mailing lists, I got stunned
> >>at seeing the fact that some mailing lists accepted
> >>spam mails.
> >
> >
> > Some lists were setup wrong. AFAIK, none of the lists should accept mail
> > from non-subscribers without moderation.
>
> Although there are some lists where it might be nice.
Particularly:
security@* - where the risk of false positives is the highest.
pmc@* - since its job is oversight and should allow messages from
community members who are not subscribed (and can't be if they're
not ASF members).
Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> > Some lists were setup wrong. AFAIK, none of the lists should accept
mail
> > from non-subscribers without moderation.
> Although there are some lists where it might be nice.
repository@ was setup that way. There was no advertisement of its
existence, yet it was receiving spam. I don't think that it is feasible for
any list to accept non-moderated mail from non-subscribers.
> Is there any reason we don't run something like Spam Assassin
We do have anti-spam filters. The problem is balancing false positives
against spam. The bias has been against false positives. I've no doubt
that more can, and will, be done in the future.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Posted by Berin Lautenbach <be...@ozemail.com.au>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>when I subscribed to some mailing lists, I got stunned
>>at seeing the fact that some mailing lists accepted
>>spam mails.
>
>
> Some lists were setup wrong. AFAIK, none of the lists should accept mail
> from non-subscribers without moderation.
Although there are some lists where it might be nice.
I am *sure* this has been gone over before - so I ask for my own
edification. Is there any reason we don't run something like Spam
Assassin (processing/support etc.?)
Cheers,
Berin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> when I subscribed to some mailing lists, I got stunned
> at seeing the fact that some mailing lists accepted
> spam mails.
Some lists were setup wrong. AFAIK, none of the lists should accept mail
from non-subscribers without moderation.
> I thought that this was tightly related to the negligence of
> infrastructure committees' nobless obligations.
There are several 100 lists at present. It might be possible to write a
script to validate some aspect of ezmlm configuration. But to refer to it
as negligence or nobless oblige is unfair to the people who work their arses
off maintaining the infrastructure.
Your example of Reply-To sounds like like a mistake in implementation that
of policy. Mistakes happen. If there is an error in the setup instructions
or scripts, that can be fixed.
> Maintanance of "site" is not "infrastructural" one. Rather, public
> relations.
Actually, maintenance of site is a responsibility of the Members. Every
Member has the ability to regenerate site. If is very simple. As with any
anakia-based site, the basic steps are:
1. cvs co/up site
2. make changes to xdocs
3. run the build script (included in the module)
4. commit changes.
5. sign onto the live server
6. cvs up live site
> Also, I think that the overall watching the XX.apache.org site
> would be important. PR committee should do just "suggestions",
> however, unified view would suffice the users' gratifications.
Anyone can make suggestions. The oversight of each domain is the
responsibility of that PMC. If you feel that there is a problem, let them
know. If there is a real problem and the PMC fails to act, there are other
recourses.
> ApacheCon Advert?? ... PR committee.
I think the ApacheCon committee did a pretty decent job of it.
> Also, please reduce the burdens of infrastructure team.
We reduce the burden of the infrastructure team by finding more trustworthy
and competent people. Without the people, it doesn't matter how you slice
the task, the same people still need to do the work. And that is the thing
I am noticing about your proposal. You keep proposing disparate groups, but
the real need is for additional people. People who can be vested with some
of the responsibility of helping to provide a secure infrastructure for the
entire ASF.
There was a time when DLR was the only person who had a clue about
eyebrowse. It could be months before things were fixed. Berin Lautenbach
and myself volunteered to learn about eyebrowse, and hopefully have helped
to fill that void.
And we are starting to deploy tools that can shift capabilities from a
central group to the groups that need them. For example, Jira lets us put a
great deal of partitioned control into the hands of a project's developers
and PMC. That means that the "core" Jira support folks can focus on keeping
Jira running, not on answering lots of requests for change from the
projects. Subversion will reduce the burden on root and cvsadmin.
IMO, the greatest improvement will come from a larger pool of resources, and
from tools that securely distribute capabilities. In some respects, the
latter will help develop the former.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Posted by Tetsuya Kitahata <te...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:33:45 +0200
(Subject: Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!))
Erik Abele <er...@codefaktor.de> wrote:
> I don't want to be an "enthusiasm blocker" but I have to agree with
> what Justin already said. Tetsuya, do you think that the suggested
> split-ups are reducing the amount of bureaucracy we already have in
> ASF-land? If so, can you please be so kind and elaborate further on
> this?
Erik, I would rather like to make that proposal more meaningful.
"the amount of bureaucracy" would *not* be related to that proposal.
I do not think that the site maintainance would fit to infrastructure
team's task. Rather, I want that committee (infra) to keep
keen eyes to exact infrastructural issues and "not to omit important
mails coming to infra@ and root@".
As for mailing lists maintainance, I think "Communication" Committee
would fit to that task as well as infrastructure committee.
AAMOF, when I subscribed to some mailing lists, I got stunned
at seeing the fact that some mailing lists accepted spam mails.
I thought that this was tightly related to the negligence of
infrastructure committees' nobless obligations. ("nobless obligations"
means that that committee did not have such an enthusiasm to
improve the mailing lists functions. infra team did well in the past,
i think ... though ...) Human beings tend not to do the tasks which
would not attract their "motivations". I assumed that infrastructure
team did not have much "motivations" to it. This is one of the reason
of that proposal.
I think "Communication" Committee can establish a policy of the
mailing lists maintainances. For example,
what I often see at the new mailing lists are the omit of
"Reply-To:" Header. I do not think it would be acceptable
diversity. "Communication" Committee can establish such a policy.
> I'd be fine with some sort of Publicity/PR Committee doing the
> newsletter and some marketing stuff but right now I can't think of any
> good reasons which would justify a major overhaul of our infrastructure
> teams (apmail, site, etc.). Do you see something utterly broken here?
Maintanance of "site" is not "infrastructural" one. Rather, public
relations. Establishing webmaster@apache.org and FWing the mails coming
to such address to PR committee would suffice. The same goes for
apache@apache
--
Also, I think that the overall watching the XX.apache.org site
would be important. PR committee should do just "suggestions",
however, unified view would suffice the users' gratifications.
For example, see
http://maven.apache.org/
Anyone would think that maven is now under "jakarta" (see the logo).
I do not think such impressions would be good for the asf as a whole.
Who would watch these kinds of things? .... infrastructure? .. NO,
PR committee.
ApacheCon Advert?? ... PR committee.
--
Please make that proposal of the establishment of "Communication" and
"Public Relations" (PR) more meaningful. I've forgotten about that event,
which would be related to newsletter on the whole. :)
Also, please reduce the burdens of infrastructure team.
PR and Communication committees should keep good relations
with each committers/members/developers. The ultimate goal would be
"improvements of (user|member|committer|developer)-friendliness"
Cheers,
-- Tetsuya. (tetsuya@apache.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > 1. website (www.apache.org/ "site" module) maintenance
> > and improvements/suggestions of userfriendliness of each $tlp sites.
>
> I believe the website needs to be ultimately controlled by the infrastructure
> committee. We used to have a separate list for doing the 'site' module
> (site-dev@), but people found it too cumbersome and it was shut down and all
> discussion was moved back to infrastructure@. So, we've tried having 'site'
> split off and that failed. And, I also believe that each PMC needs to be
> responsible for their own site.
The traffic volume on the "site" list was almost zero. I asked to have it
removed because I didn't feel there was adequate oversite. More people
pay attention on infrastructure. (Perhaps there were a whole bunch of
subscribers who just never said anything; I don't know.)
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Posted by Erik Abele <er...@codefaktor.de>.
I don't want to be an "enthusiasm blocker" but I have to agree with
what Justin already said. Tetsuya, do you think that the suggested
split-ups are reducing the amount of bureaucracy we already have in
ASF-land? If so, can you please be so kind and elaborate further on
this?
I'd be fine with some sort of Publicity/PR Committee doing the
newsletter and some marketing stuff but right now I can't think of any
good reasons which would justify a major overhaul of our infrastructure
teams (apmail, site, etc.). Do you see something utterly broken here?
Cheers and thanks,
Erik
On 23/10/2003, at 10:50, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:44 AM +0900 Tetsuya Kitahata
> <te...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> ?? ... press@ can't be found at http://www.apache.org/mail/
>> neither eyebrowse.
>> Where can i find the archive (log), by the way?
>
> press@ is not a public list. It is the place where PR firms can (and
> do) contact us. Yet, the content of those messages are not public
> information.
>
>> 'Public Relations Committee':
>> 1. website (www.apache.org/ "site" module) maintenance
>> and improvements/suggestions of userfriendliness of each $tlp sites.
>
> I believe the website needs to be ultimately controlled by the
> infrastructure committee. We used to have a separate list for doing
> the 'site' module (site-dev@), but people found it too cumbersome and
> it was shut down and all discussion was moved back to infrastructure@.
> So, we've tried having 'site' split off and that failed. And, I also
> believe that each PMC needs to be responsible for their own site.
>
>> 2. press@
>
> AFAICT, press@ is doin' just fine. I don't see a need to usurp this
> into a committee. Plus, the main person to talk to here is Sally.
> She's pretty much only on press@, AFAIK.
>
>> 3. apache@ (and hidden mail address :-)
>
> AFAIK, Ken Coar is the one who responds to these. He has, on several
> occasions, declined offers of assistance - this has been a
> semi-frequent topic of discussion on infrastructure@, but the outcome
> has always been the same. Perhaps he'd be willing to change his mind
> now...
>
>> 4. webmaster@$tlp
>> 5. announcements@$tlp
>
> I think these two represent a poor trend in that they'd move away from
> TLP control to centralized control. I can't disagree with that
> enough. The PMC needs to responsible for this type of stuff.
>
>> 6. Marketing
>> 7. (Newsletter)
>
> If you want to group these two together, that'd be fine. Call it
> 'Publicity'.
>
>> 'Communications Committee':
>> 1. apmail@
>> 2. supervise of XX@$tlp.apache.org lists
>> 3. supervise of XX@apache.org lists (community, committer, announce,
>> etc.)
>
> Absolutely not. This is the infrastructure committee's
> responsibility. Proper operation of the website and mailing lists is
> the responsibility of that committee. It currently delegates these
> responsibilities into root@ and apmail@ participants. I don't think
> you've made a compelling argument that the current situation is broken
> and worth splitting up into new committees.
>
>> 4. Coaching (mentoring?) of developers/committers/members
>
> Perhaps incubator, but I'm not clear what you mean. -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:44 AM +0900 Tetsuya Kitahata
<te...@apache.org> wrote:
> ?? ... press@ can't be found at http://www.apache.org/mail/
> neither eyebrowse.
> Where can i find the archive (log), by the way?
press@ is not a public list. It is the place where PR firms can (and do)
contact us. Yet, the content of those messages are not public information.
> 'Public Relations Committee':
> 1. website (www.apache.org/ "site" module) maintenance
> and improvements/suggestions of userfriendliness of each $tlp sites.
I believe the website needs to be ultimately controlled by the infrastructure
committee. We used to have a separate list for doing the 'site' module
(site-dev@), but people found it too cumbersome and it was shut down and all
discussion was moved back to infrastructure@. So, we've tried having 'site'
split off and that failed. And, I also believe that each PMC needs to be
responsible for their own site.
> 2. press@
AFAICT, press@ is doin' just fine. I don't see a need to usurp this into a
committee. Plus, the main person to talk to here is Sally. She's pretty much
only on press@, AFAIK.
> 3. apache@ (and hidden mail address :-)
AFAIK, Ken Coar is the one who responds to these. He has, on several
occasions, declined offers of assistance - this has been a semi-frequent topic
of discussion on infrastructure@, but the outcome has always been the same.
Perhaps he'd be willing to change his mind now...
> 4. webmaster@$tlp
> 5. announcements@$tlp
I think these two represent a poor trend in that they'd move away from TLP
control to centralized control. I can't disagree with that enough. The PMC
needs to responsible for this type of stuff.
> 6. Marketing
> 7. (Newsletter)
If you want to group these two together, that'd be fine. Call it 'Publicity'.
> 'Communications Committee':
> 1. apmail@
> 2. supervise of XX@$tlp.apache.org lists
> 3. supervise of XX@apache.org lists (community, committer, announce, etc.)
Absolutely not. This is the infrastructure committee's responsibility.
Proper operation of the website and mailing lists is the responsibility of
that committee. It currently delegates these responsibilities into root@ and
apmail@ participants. I don't think you've made a compelling argument that
the current situation is broken and worth splitting up into new committees.
> 4. Coaching (mentoring?) of developers/committers/members
Perhaps incubator, but I'm not clear what you mean. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Posted by Tetsuya Kitahata <te...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
(Subject: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!))
Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org> wrote:
> > 'Public Relations Committee' ... Sounds reasonable.
> We've long had the press@ mailing list. We could inflate this in a
> slightly bigger PR like institution. And also house webite content and
> wiki content overview there. But that seems overkill for me.
?? ... press@ can't be found at http://www.apache.org/mail/
neither eyebrowse.
Where can i find the archive (log), by the way?
--
I think it would be reasonable to create
'Public Relations Committee':
1. website (www.apache.org/ "site" module) maintainance
and improvements/suggestions of userfriendliness of each $tlp sites.
2. press@
3. apache@ (and hidden mail address :-)
4. webmaster@$tlp
5. announcements@$tlp
6. Marketing
7. (Newsletter)
'Communications Committee':
1. apmail@
2. supervise of XX@$tlp.apache.org lists
3. supervise of XX@apache.org lists (community, committer, announce, etc.)
4. Coaching (mentoring?) of developers/committers/members
5. (Newsletter)
6. More to be come?
Thoughts?
-- Tetsuya. (tetsuya@apache.org)
P.S. Public_Relations/Communications are tightly related to
"right-limbic brain", OTOH, Infrastructure is tightly related
to "left-limbic brain". Just a "preference" of the way of
thiking and behaviour. This explains why most of developers do not
prefer the term "marketing", as a matter of fact :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
>
>
>>'Public Relations Committee' ... Sounds reasonable.
>>
>>
>We've long had the press@ mailing list. We could inflate this in a
>slightly bigger PR like institution. And also house webite content and
>wiki content overview there. But that seems overkill for me.
>
It might help ease the strain being placed on the infrastructure team a
little.
- Leo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
> 'Public Relations Committee' ... Sounds reasonable.
We've long had the press@ mailing list. We could inflate this in a
slightly bigger PR like institution. And also house webite content and
wiki content overview there. But that seems overkill for me.
DW
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: The board is not responsible!
Posted by Tetsuya Kitahata <te...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:07:17 -0500
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> The two board ones answer to the board, infrastructure answers to the
> president. If their was a public relations or communications committee,
> the newsletter would obviously fit right there.
'Public Relations Committee' ... Sounds reasonable.
apache@apache.org (and hidden :-) mail address) would
be related there.
Also, 'Communications Committee' ... Maybe, the creation
and supervision of mailing lists (including XX project)
can be related to it. (Virii, Spam mails, etc.) .. highly
related to apmail@.
Both can be highly associated with Newsletter and make sense.
Which entity will be responsible to create such
"PRODUCE NO PRODUCTS" entities? Board? Member? Incubator?
-- Tetsuya. (tetsuya@apache.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: The board is not responsible!
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 09:12 AM 10/22/2003, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:31:20 -0000
>(Subject: RE: The board is not responsible!)
>Magnus ?or Torfason <ma...@handpoint.com> wrote:
>
>> > > Isn't the ASF Board ultimately responsible
>> > This is just wrong. Responsibility lies with the individual
>> > commiters, members, and their associated project PMCs.
>> But this seems to have been exactly the problem with the recent
>> discussions. The arguments have been over the use of the
>> announce@apache.org mailing list, and there seems to be no PMC
>> responsible for that list.
>
>* Fund-raising (Board Committee)
>* Security Team (Board Committee)
>* Infrastructure or Operations team (Presidents Committee)
>
>These three do not have PMC entities in the strict sense of the word.
These are (non-project) management committees. They are empowered
to make certain decisions and are accountable to the membership as
a whole through the board and president, respectively.
The two board ones answer to the board, infrastructure answers to the
president. If their was a public relations or communications committee,
the newsletter would obviously fit right there.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: The board is not responsible!
Posted by Tetsuya Kitahata <te...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:31:20 -0000
(Subject: RE: The board is not responsible!)
Magnus ?or Torfason <ma...@handpoint.com> wrote:
> > > Isn't the ASF Board ultimately responsible
> > This is just wrong. Responsibility lies with the individual
> > commiters, members, and their associated project PMCs.
> But this seems to have been exactly the problem with the recent
> discussions. The arguments have been over the use of the
> announce@apache.org mailing list, and there seems to be no PMC
> responsible for that list.
* Fund-raising (Board Committee)
* Security Team (Board Committee)
* Infrastructure or Operations team (Presidents Committee)
These three do not have PMC entities in the strict sense of the word.
That issue was:
"Infrastructure Team should not legitimatize the newsletter or
vice versa."
Rather, I would like to see the
"Newsletter Team (Apache History Team?)" (Board Committee)
and should be found at
/home/cvs/committers/board/committie-info.txt
... would be an equal footing with infrastructure team.
Or, "Mailing Team" (Board Committee) which would
be highly associated with apmail@ entity.
> Should there perhaps be such a PMC, or a PMC responsible for all
> mailing lists not managed by any other PMCs?
-- Tetsuya. (tetsuya@apache.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetsuya Kitahata -- Terra-International, Inc.
E-mail: tetsuya@apache.org http://www.terra-intl.com/
Apache Software Foundation Committer: http://www.apache.org/~tetsuya/
fingerprint: E420 3713 FAB0 C160 4A1E 6FC5 5846 23D6 80AE BDEA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: Internationalization list/team
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> > As for internationalization, I don't see why it should not be part of
Apache
> > Commons. I think that it is exactly the correct place for it. I don't
know
> > that it needs a CVS module, but I'm not opposed to one.
> Apache Commons uses SVN :-)
self: :-( at: self
And I knew that, too. Well, that works. Perhaps better in some respects.
So to setup internationalization at Apache Commons, the Commons PMC just has
to request a mailing list. I'll leave the SVN issues to the current
discussion on infrastructure.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Internationalization list/team
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 12:37:28PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
>
> > * Mailing Team (Board Committee)
> > * Internationalization Team (Board Committee)
>
> > are what I needed and wanted.
> > (*NOT* i18n@commons.apache.org: for i18n)
>
> There is a mailing team. "apmail" is part of infrastructure.
Right.
> As for internationalization, I don't see why it should not be part of Apache
> Commons. I think that it is exactly the correct place for it. I don't know
> that it needs a CVS module, but I'm not opposed to one.
Apache Commons uses SVN :-)
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Internationalization list/team
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Wednesday, October 22, 2003 12:37 PM -0400 "Noel J. Bergman"
<no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> As for internationalization, I don't see why it should not be part of Apache
> Commons. I think that it is exactly the correct place for it. I don't know
> that it needs a CVS module, but I'm not opposed to one.
Here's my $.02 as a Commons PMCer:
If you want to write tools to support i18n, then Commons PMC will welcome the
effort. If you want to create ASF-wide policy for i18n, then I don't think
Commons Project is the correct place. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Internationalization list/team
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
> * Mailing Team (Board Committee)
> * Internationalization Team (Board Committee)
> are what I needed and wanted.
> (*NOT* i18n@commons.apache.org: for i18n)
There is a mailing team. "apmail" is part of infrastructure.
As for internationalization, I don't see why it should not be part of Apache
Commons. I think that it is exactly the correct place for it. I don't know
that it needs a CVS module, but I'm not opposed to one.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: The board is not responsible!
Posted by Tetsuya Kitahata <te...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:55:57 -0400
"Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> Everyone agreed that an announcement was fully appropriate. The
> question is whether the entire newsletter, itself, should be e-mailed
> or just an announcement. The reaction has been out of proportion with
> the event, and has escalated beyond the point of recognition.
Yes, I think. Also, it is because
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=community@apache.org&msgNo=2239
I declared that
** There is still a room for the discussion about the 'frequency' and
** 'place to post', however, I want to do the "experimentation" for a
** while. (not so long)
** I think "experimentation" might conform to the "A Patchy" spirits ;-)
... nevertheless someone forgot this (my) statement. That's all.
--
* Mailing Team (Board Committee)
* Internationalization Team (Board Committee)
are what I needed and wanted.
(*NOT* i18n@commons.apache.org: for i18n)
These two team can not produce "PRODUCTS", however, I think
it would be required and what people want.
These suffice my intentions as well as ByLaws of Foundation,
I suspect.
-- Tetsuya. (tetsuya@apache.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: The board is not responsible!
Posted by Tetsuya Kitahata <te...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:10:39 +0200
(Subject: Re: The board is not responsible!)
Santiago Gala <sg...@hisitech.com> wrote:
> > Should there perhaps be such a PMC, or a PMC responsible for all
> > mailing lists not managed by any other PMCs?
> Who manages those managers that don't manage themselves?
> XXIst century version of the Barber's paradow
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox
> The joys of knowledge workers ;-)
Great! Related to "Godel's incompleteness theorem!" nice theory.
Ahaha. "Godel's incompleteness theorem" would be highly associated
with the tendencies and the behaviours of humanbeings toward
"Partial (Local) Optimization"
Such a kind of "Partial (Local) Optimization" can be seen everywhere
in our country. Glogally, "Local Optimization" would easily lead people
to the wrong place, either cause self-contradiction as a whole.
These kinds of things are tightly related to the e-mail (and web)
communities. Yes, the same goes for the developers' communities.
(e.g. The momentum of the balkanization into smaller realms)
The only one medical prescription to avoid such a "self-contradiction"
is ... the appreciation of the momentum of thinking things globally (synthesis),
which would be tightly associated with right-cerebral quarter-sphere:)
Thanks, godness.
-- Tetsuya. (tetsuya@apache.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: The board is not responsible!
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> > > Isn't the ASF Board ultimately responsible
> > This is just wrong. Responsibility lies with the individual
> > commiters, members, and their associated project PMCs.
> But this seems to have been exactly the problem with the recent
> discussions. The arguments have been over the use of the
> announce@apache.org mailing list, and there seems to be no PMC
> responsible for that list.
First of all, this is massively out of proportion. There were a few
comments made by people who felt that an announcement should be e-mailed
instead of the entire newsletter. That's all. Contrary to what has been
said, there was no attempt by "The Infrastructure Team" to regulate
anything. As has been said before, infrastructure implements policy; it
rarely establishes policy.
As for whom should make the policy decision, we are they. It is a community
decision. The Members are the ultimate decision-makers, but I think that is
unnecessary for a decision of this nature. The more that decisions are made
at the Community level, if there is a good consensus, the better.
Everyone agreed that an announcement was fully appropriate. The question is
whether the entire newsletter, itself, should be e-mailed or just an
announcement. The reaction has been out of proportion with the event, and
has escalated beyond the point of recognition.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: The board is not responsible!
Posted by Santiago Gala <sg...@hisitech.com>.
El miércoles, 22 octu, 2003, a las 15:31 Europe/Madrid, Magnus ?or
Torfason escribió:
> Should there perhaps be such a PMC, or a PMC responsible for all
> mailing lists not managed by any other PMCs?
>
Who manages those managers that don't manage themselves?
XXIst century version of the Barber's paradow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox
The joys of knowledge workers ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: The board is not responsible!
Posted by Magnus ?or Torfason <ma...@handpoint.com>.
> > Isn't the ASF Board ultimately responsible
>
> This is just wrong. Responsibility lies with the individual
> commiters, members, and their associated project PMCs.
But this seems to have been exactly the problem with the recent
discussions. The arguments have been over the use of the
announce@apache.org mailing list, and there seems to be no PMC
responsible for that list.
Should there perhaps be such a PMC, or a PMC responsible for all
mailing lists not managed by any other PMCs?
Regards,
Magnus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org