You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to women@apache.org by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com> on 2005/08/11 17:49:06 UTC
[VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Currently subscriptions to women@apache.org are moderated, and they will
continue to be moderated until the participants decide to change that
policy.
This vote is to determine if the participants on this list agree to
allow subscriptions by non-committers.
[ ] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
[ ] 0: I don't care
[ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Astrid Keßler <ke...@kess-net.de>.
> [x] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
> [ ] 0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
Kess
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
> [X] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
> [ ] 0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
-jean
Re: [TALLY] [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by "Brian W. Fitzpatrick" <fi...@red-bean.com>.
On Aug 14, 2005, at 10:12 PM, susan wu wrote:
>
> +1 with the new charters
Same here. +1 with the new charters.
-Fitz
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>
>> On 11 Aug 2005 08:49:06 -0700, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> Currently subscriptions to women@apache.org are moderated, and
>>> they will continue to be moderated until the participants decide
>>> to change that policy.
>>> This vote is to determine if the participants on this list agree
>>> to allow subscriptions by non-committers.
>>> [ ] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
>>> [ ] 0: I don't care
>>> [ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
>>>
>>
>> Here's the tally so far (after 3 days):
>>
>> 1: Yes: 7
>> Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com>
>> Berin Loritsch <bl...@d-haven.org>
>> Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com>
>> Ted Leung <tw...@sauria.com>
>> Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>
>> Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>
>> Astrid Keßler <ke...@kess-net.de>
>>
>> 0: Don't Care: 1
>> Brian W. Fitzpatrick <fi...@red-bean.com>
>>
>> -1 : No: 1
>> Ian Holsman <kr...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>> -jean
>
Re: [TALLY] [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by susan wu <su...@arctic.org>.
+1 with the new charters
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2005 08:49:06 -0700, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>> Currently subscriptions to women@apache.org are moderated, and they will
>> continue to be moderated until the participants decide to change that
>> policy.
>>
>> This vote is to determine if the participants on this list agree to allow
>> subscriptions by non-committers.
>>
>> [ ] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
>> [ ] 0: I don't care
>> [ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
>
> Here's the tally so far (after 3 days):
>
> 1: Yes: 7
> Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com>
> Berin Loritsch <bl...@d-haven.org>
> Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com>
> Ted Leung <tw...@sauria.com>
> Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>
> Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>
> Astrid Keßler <ke...@kess-net.de>
>
> 0: Don't Care: 1
> Brian W. Fitzpatrick <fi...@red-bean.com>
>
> -1 : No: 1
> Ian Holsman <kr...@gmail.com>
>
>
> -jean
>
[TALLY] [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
On 11 Aug 2005 08:49:06 -0700, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Currently subscriptions to women@apache.org are moderated, and they will
> continue to be moderated until the participants decide to change that
> policy.
>
> This vote is to determine if the participants on this list agree to
> allow subscriptions by non-committers.
>
> [ ] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
> [ ] 0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
Here's the tally so far (after 3 days):
1: Yes: 7
Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com>
Berin Loritsch <bl...@d-haven.org>
Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com>
Ted Leung <tw...@sauria.com>
Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>
Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>
Astrid Keßler <ke...@kess-net.de>
0: Don't Care: 1
Brian W. Fitzpatrick <fi...@red-bean.com>
-1 : No: 1
Ian Holsman <kr...@gmail.com>
-jean
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@d-haven.org>.
Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 08:49 -0700, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>
>>Currently subscriptions to women@apache.org are moderated, and they will
>>continue to be moderated until the participants decide to change that
>>policy.
>>
>>This vote is to determine if the participants on this list agree to
>>allow subscriptions by non-committers.
>>
>>[ ] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
>>[x] 0: I don't care
>>[ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
>>
>>
>
>I don't care, although deep down inside, I'd probably prefer that for
>the immediate future we allow non-committers in only on a case-by-case
>basis (i.e. Invited participants and interested third parties that we
>approve of) until we get the ball rolling.
>
>That's just an opinion, thoush. My vote stands at 0.
>
>
Its my assumption that is what we are talking about. Not a blanket open
door yet.
Re: using apache.org address
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> >
> >There are some tips for moderators in
> >https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/docs/resources.txt
> >(probably need to be moved to /dev/).
> >
> >http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#hats
>
> Oh good, I'm not suffering from early alzheimers then. :-) The
> MailAlias.txt mentioned by resources.txt does the trick -- thanks for
> the tip.
Mmmm, i don't what is the purpose of that file,
nor whether it is well-maintained (probably not).
Anyway, it helps.
-David
Re: using apache.org address
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
David Crossley wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>>Ted Leung wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Also, (for informational purposes), there are a fair number of people
>>>who do not use their @apache.org addresses on a regular basis. For
>>>example, I only use mine if I (rarely) feel the need to speak as a
>>>member. I used the address a little bit more when I was a PMC chair.
>>
>>IMHO not using @apache.org address is perfectly fine. Not an issue,
>>especially for this list.
>>
>>I thought http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html used to say
>>to subscribe to some of the lists from the apache.org email (and I did
>>so for a couple lists), but I think I must have imagined that. I find it
>>now says:
>>
>>
>>>Some lists are only open to ASF committers. The moderators have methods to
>>>ensure that subscribers are committers, so subscribe using whatever email
>>>address that you want.
>
>
> No fear about your imagination. Those pages are continually
> being refined. That old suggestion proved troublesome,
> because one does not actually get forced to use the
> apache.org address.
>
> There are some tips for moderators in
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/docs/resources.txt
> (probably need to be moved to /dev/).
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#hats
>
> -David
Oh good, I'm not suffering from early alzheimers then. :-) The
MailAlias.txt mentioned by resources.txt does the trick -- thanks for
the tip.
-jean
using apache.org address
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Ted Leung wrote:
>
> >Also, (for informational purposes), there are a fair number of people
> >who do not use their @apache.org addresses on a regular basis. For
> >example, I only use mine if I (rarely) feel the need to speak as a
> >member. I used the address a little bit more when I was a PMC chair.
>
> IMHO not using @apache.org address is perfectly fine. Not an issue,
> especially for this list.
>
> I thought http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html used to say
> to subscribe to some of the lists from the apache.org email (and I did
> so for a couple lists), but I think I must have imagined that. I find it
> now says:
>
> >Some lists are only open to ASF committers. The moderators have methods to
> >ensure that subscribers are committers, so subscribe using whatever email
> >address that you want.
No fear about your imagination. Those pages are continually
being refined. That old suggestion proved troublesome,
because one does not actually get forced to use the
apache.org address.
There are some tips for moderators in
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/docs/resources.txt
(probably need to be moved to /dev/).
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#hats
-David
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Ted Leung wrote:
>...
> I'm afraid that I'm the cause of the need for the vote here. It
> wasn't clear to me that we were talking about qualified non- comitters,
> so my apologies for that.
Ted, it isn't you. :-) I had already mentioned that one of the derby
developers who isn't a committer had already asked me if she could
subscribe. I really want to see non-committers get involved.
At some point, I'd like to see subscription moderation removed, but we
aren't at a point yet where everyone will agree to that.
> Also, (for informational purposes), there are a fair number of people
> who do not use their @apache.org addresses on a regular basis. For
> example, I only use mine if I (rarely) feel the need to speak as a
> member. I used the address a little bit more when I was a PMC chair.
IMHO not using @apache.org address is perfectly fine. Not an issue,
especially for this list.
I thought http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html used to say
to subscribe to some of the lists from the apache.org email (and I did
so for a couple lists), but I think I must have imagined that. I find it
now says:
> Some lists are only open to ASF committers. The moderators have methods to ensure that subscribers are committers, so subscribe using whatever email address that you want.
-jean
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Ted Leung <tw...@sauria.com>.
Vote is here, comments below
[x ] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
[ ] 0: I don't care
[ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
On Aug 11, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 08:49 -0700, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> Currently subscriptions to women@apache.org are moderated, and
>>> they will continue to be moderated until the participants decide
>>> to change that policy.
>>>
>>> This vote is to determine if the participants on this list agree
>>> to allow subscriptions by non-committers.
>>>
>>> [ ] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
>>> [x] 0: I don't care
>>> [ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
>>>
>> I don't care, although deep down inside, I'd probably prefer that for
>> the immediate future we allow non-committers in only on a case-by-
>> case
>> basis (i.e. Invited participants and interested third parties that we
>> approve of) until we get the ball rolling.
>>
>
> I agree. So far with the moderation requests, if the email is from
> a non-apache site, I do a lookup in google, then check the name I
> find against http://people.apache.org/~jim/committers.html . If I
> can't verify, I plan to post to this list asking if anyone knows
> the requestor.
I'm afraid that I'm the cause of the need for the vote here. It
wasn't clear to me that we were talking about qualified non-
comitters, so my apologies for that.
Also, (for informational purposes), there are a fair number of people
who do not use their @apache.org addresses on a regular basis. For
example, I only use mine if I (rarely) feel the need to speak as a
member. I used the address a little bit more when I was a PMC chair.
Ted
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 08:49 -0700, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>>Currently subscriptions to women@apache.org are moderated, and they will
>>continue to be moderated until the participants decide to change that
>>policy.
>>
>>This vote is to determine if the participants on this list agree to
>>allow subscriptions by non-committers.
>>
>>[ ] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
>>[x] 0: I don't care
>>[ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
>
>
> I don't care, although deep down inside, I'd probably prefer that for
> the immediate future we allow non-committers in only on a case-by-case
> basis (i.e. Invited participants and interested third parties that we
> approve of) until we get the ball rolling.
I agree. So far with the moderation requests, if the email is from a
non-apache site, I do a lookup in google, then check the name I find
against http://people.apache.org/~jim/committers.html . If I can't
verify, I plan to post to this list asking if anyone knows the requestor.
-jean
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
susan wu wrote:
>
> I would only be +1 if these people were already very familiar with how
> the ASF community and process works. People who know what's broken now
> would be best suited to help us figure out how to improve it.
Cart & horse syndrome IMHO. People who are familiar with how the
community works don't need education about it, and probably don't
need support either. This list isn't about fixing the ASF (I'm at
a loss to understand from where that perception arose); it's
about helping women understand so they can get involved (if they
want).
In other words, it's about women adapting to the ASF milieu, not
about the ASF adapting to women.
Anyway, that's my take on it from the messages I've read and the
discussions I've had with the original proponents.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQvzCFprNPMCpn3XdAQLCkQP/cXH5MDrwYpdhCmb3CEMLmA0AjQ12vc+E
Krg32yZFt9HyexmJ1rSWsxBQ9sCWpD40jXUbns8/R9skPe5EijMMtjfEUcCmC+SK
RV61kPNds248B/zzk+8enRxXQJufVBbi3MjYADzpZy8n+g1xwxun1CToLb8pKnxa
ZaqUU8nwYjY=
=Tw+e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by susan wu <su...@arctic.org>.
>
> I don't care, although deep down inside, I'd probably prefer that for
> the immediate future we allow non-committers in only on a case-by-case
> basis (i.e. Invited participants and interested third parties that we
> approve of) until we get the ball rolling.
I agree with Brian's statement. Before I vote, I want to understand the
purpose of bringing on board non-committers.
What do we hope to accomplish? Are we trying to get more input into
developing programs and outreach to bring more women into the ASF
community? What do we think additional people will be able to contribute?
(Asking out of genuine curiosity)
I would only be +1 if these people were already very familiar with how the
ASF community and process works. People who know what's broken now would
be best suited to help us figure out how to improve it.
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by "Brian W. Fitzpatrick" <fi...@red-bean.com>.
On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 08:49 -0700, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Currently subscriptions to women@apache.org are moderated, and they will
> continue to be moderated until the participants decide to change that
> policy.
>
> This vote is to determine if the participants on this list agree to
> allow subscriptions by non-committers.
>
> [ ] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
> [x] 0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
I don't care, although deep down inside, I'd probably prefer that for
the immediate future we allow non-committers in only on a case-by-case
basis (i.e. Invited participants and interested third parties that we
approve of) until we get the ball rolling.
That's just an opinion, thoush. My vote stands at 0.
-Fitz
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
On 8/11/05, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
> Currently subscriptions to women@apache.org are moderated, and they will
> continue to be moderated until the participants decide to change that
> policy.
>
> This vote is to determine if the participants on this list agree to
> allow subscriptions by non-committers.
>
> [X ] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
> [ ] 0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
Let's not wait for women to become committers before they can use this
list to help get more involved in the ASF. There are other lists out
there for women and open source, but none that focus on Apache.
Cliff
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> I think that everyone subscribed to this list should have a binding
> vote.
+1
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQvytr5rNPMCpn3XdAQLEwAQAmMghUcPc8ysOxKYCmL1PiNfo7CnBDoJN
hY1JjEMKSAV1jSKvpypYvyLbvWt2BXizuoUm1wXjLOBTDFLN9wVqoHZ/tfHOAbGe
1bRxuv2+6n0PceU8imTAjH5rmdGu/0Lk5FUFIQKaeZOuwNMDrUIhXyJr926D5zuw
TZ93Rm7wVk0=
=Px8R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by "Brian W. Fitzpatrick" <fi...@red-bean.com>.
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 07:49 +1000, Ian Holsman wrote:
> (I think my vote is binding, but I don't know the rules in this list)
I think that everyone subscribed to this list should have a binding
vote.
-Fitz
Re: Mired in procedures (was Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers
to women@apache.org)
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Oh geez, this is getting ridiculous. We had a 100+ email flame war on
> board@ just to get this list, and now you want *another* mailing list?
> Can't we just discuss here for a while and see what happens? Sorry for
> my short tone here, but I'm getting more than a little frustrated with
> the "let's discuss what we're going to discuss" attitude.
8< snip
> So, if it's not clear, I'm a HUGE -1 on re-voting, breaking up,
> whatever. Let's get on with it people.
+100
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQvyxbJrNPMCpn3XdAQIqwQP+Oxu/s0A+AQ8r19bwRuMv1Qhh+zg3Oj/K
gt2rvYmLpNrPJeZ27ffVz7zCK7yGd4CUfvcmAq4pjHzCc7OxOOXt/KlsbVa7HL/G
ZWR6PWcoEmoRALp2zrLFf7OGCXdmfZqyZh81bhJTkrbN1Y8GFOjDNt7QchJMt1Bc
gEnxUQCeW24=
=XdOF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Mired in procedures (was Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers
to women@apache.org)
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
susan wu wrote:
>
> I am +1. The reason being that there's no reason why we shouldn't get
> women involved today, while we try to sort out our strategy behind the
> scenes. So I agree- one list for ascertaining what our official position
> and programs are in support of a recruitment/enlightenment effort, and
> one for getting women involved in dialogue with the community -today-.
> As Jean mentions, there are women who could benefit from our mentoring
> immediately, with whom we could share best practices. On the other
> hand, there are issues for which we have not reached consensus that
> should remain internal until we do reach consensus.
Um, +1 on what? On the vote that started this thread, about not
restricting subscriptions to at-least-committers? Or +1 to the
tangential ideas Ian is raising, which should be discussed in a
separate thread?
A 'VOTE' shouldn't be repurposed in the voting thread. If someone
feels the whole topic is badly phrased or otherwise premature,
metadiscussion *about* the vote should happen in a separate thread
so as to not cloud the issue (as here) of who's voting which way on
what.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQvzB75rNPMCpn3XdAQJDSgQA3dfvbFPW23XjU1bm1RpnGdSHA81RYs5r
DOUxvdGyzaFCNsP+cua+WaoNNh2hkC53/E7dWtJo8/HMvDWWExNQ/2mCtuHVFTuN
VW7XmNQZ8ejtS5vsCO5ZHlEYKhnxQbHn4PoOncmdrxXuPOzkozSo2BZSygCN4reA
i3BWker0E+k=
=oHCM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Mired in procedures (was Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers
to women@apache.org)
Posted by susan wu <su...@arctic.org>.
> but honestly I see 2 different needs here.
>
> 1. getting women more involved - - how do we get this done
>
> 2. helping new people/women out/ learning the ropes
>
I am +1. The reason being that there's no reason why we shouldn't get
women involved today, while we try to sort out our strategy behind the
scenes. So I agree- one list for ascertaining what our official position
and programs are in support of a recruitment/enlightenment effort, and one
for getting women involved in dialogue with the community -today-. As
Jean mentions, there are women who could benefit from our mentoring
immediately, with whom we could share best practices. On the other hand,
there are issues for which we have not reached consensus that should
remain internal until we do reach consensus.
Re: Mired in procedures (was Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers
to women@apache.org)
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ian Holsman wrote:
> but honestly I see 2 different needs here.
Fine. We need to decide which one (if you've got them right)
should be served by this list -- and leave it at that. If
you want the other need served, then work on getting another
list.
Although I don't see why a list has to be single-purposed.
> that is why I suggested splitting up. one is a operational one, the
> other is strategic.
Good summation. By all means please start the proposal for
a strategic list. It's pretty obvious to me that this one
is meant to be 'operational' (or 'tactical' if you prefer).
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQvyyKZrNPMCpn3XdAQKYCQP+Ibe88H9+ZhOH6ZrK6bV310WwDgnh8qvJ
qyIB0phbiwheUrMl/O6Q6NQaiwiynM6foGt4zHkwP6WqTarybEmIR9r3+RRrSLHo
/E4wy4R0VhJxBKrzmXBROX9YpQKJ+4r+P6rjWVyJssd58yzKZzZ8/qiZAVsdpj2P
H5U05Uzsfbc=
=yRjX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Mired in procedures (was Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org)
Posted by Ian Holsman <kr...@gmail.com>.
but honestly I see 2 different needs here.
1. getting women more involved - - how do we get this done
2. helping new people/women out/ learning the ropes
both of these needs have different audiences, different objectives,
and different measures
of success.
that is why I suggested splitting up. one is a operational one, the
other is strategic.
I see you disagree, thats OK ..
but I don't see how having one list could address both of these needs
at the same time, without the two needs getting all tangled up in each
other.
-i
On 8/12/05, Brian W. Fitzpatrick <fi...@red-bean.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 11, 2005, at 7:54 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> > my understanding of the pmc's are that they are not meant for that
> > kind of discussions.
> > but yes... that would do..
> > but my point still stands.. the 'pmc/whatever you call it' should be
> > made up of ASF members/comitters just like all the others.
> >
> > anyone want to hold a re-vote on these breakup/idea?
>
> Oh geez, this is getting ridiculous. We had a 100+ email flame war
> on board@ just to get this list, and now you want *another* mailing
> list? Can't we just discuss here for a while and see what happens?
> Sorry for my short tone here, but I'm getting more than a little
> frustrated with the "let's discuss what we're going to discuss"
> attitude. You don't *start* a garden by dropping 4 seeds in the
> middle of your backyard--you plant the seeds in a little pot and tend
> to them carefully, only transplanting them once they've gotten too
> big for their original (small) home.
>
> So, if it's not clear, I'm a HUGE -1 on re-voting, breaking up,
> whatever. Let's get on with it people.
>
> -Fitz
>
--
Ian@Holsman.net -- 03-9877-0909
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough. -
Mario Andretti
Mired in procedures (was Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org)
Posted by "Brian W. Fitzpatrick" <fi...@red-bean.com>.
On Aug 11, 2005, at 7:54 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
> my understanding of the pmc's are that they are not meant for that
> kind of discussions.
> but yes... that would do..
> but my point still stands.. the 'pmc/whatever you call it' should be
> made up of ASF members/comitters just like all the others.
>
> anyone want to hold a re-vote on these breakup/idea?
Oh geez, this is getting ridiculous. We had a 100+ email flame war
on board@ just to get this list, and now you want *another* mailing
list? Can't we just discuss here for a while and see what happens?
Sorry for my short tone here, but I'm getting more than a little
frustrated with the "let's discuss what we're going to discuss"
attitude. You don't *start* a garden by dropping 4 seeds in the
middle of your backyard--you plant the seeds in a little pot and tend
to them carefully, only transplanting them once they've gotten too
big for their original (small) home.
So, if it's not clear, I'm a HUGE -1 on re-voting, breaking up,
whatever. Let's get on with it people.
-Fitz
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Ian Holsman <kr...@gmail.com>.
my understanding of the pmc's are that they are not meant for that
kind of discussions.
but yes... that would do..
but my point still stands.. the 'pmc/whatever you call it' should be
made up of ASF members/comitters just like all the others.
anyone want to hold a re-vote on these breakup/idea?
On 8/12/05, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
> Ian Holsman wrote:
> > On 8/12/05, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Ian Holsman wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi Jean,
> >>>I'll try to cut down the long emails now.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Long emails are fine; it just might take a little time to read and
> >>digest them. :-) But I have to admit I'm losing something here. In your
> >>view, what are the 2 missions? I apologize in advance if I'm not reading
> >>closely enough.
> >
> >
> > 1 mission, 2 lists
> >
> > mission: Increase the participation of women at Apache
> >
> > ...
> >
> > each list would attract a different group of people.
> >
> > the first list is the one I think should be made of ASF
> > members/comitters. (and probably danese as the exception). It would be
> > where the decisions on how to best achieve the goals of the mission
> > would be.
>
> In essense, a women-pmc@apache.org ? Like the other pmc lists, that
> would have the additional advantage of providing an umbrella for
> handling any thorny issues in private that emerge on women@apache.org.
> Sounds sensible to me.
>
> > the 2nd could be open to all. should be it women only? maybe..
>
> I wouldn't restrict it because men, too, can help women contribute at
> Apache. Besides, at a practical level it really can be difficult to
> determine the gender behind an email. I have received email asking "Are
> you french or female?"
>
> At any rate, the formation a pmc umbrella list certainly seems sensible
> to me.
>
> What do other think who have been participating in this discussion?
>
> -jean
>
> > but I think we should first look at the mission and get a plan going,
> > instead of just rushing in and doing this before all of us have had
> > some thought about it. in this case I think it is needed, don't get
> > me wrong.. but we might find a better list purpose if we think about
> > it for a little bit, and get the goals set out.
> >
> >
> > 4 basic steps:
> > analyze
> > plan
> > implement
> > manage
> >
> >
> > Oh.. I'm an australian.. and If you think my emails are hard to
> > understand you should hear me talk ;-)
>
--
Ian@Holsman.net -- 03-9877-0909
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough. -
Mario Andretti
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Ian Holsman wrote:
> On 8/12/05, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
>
>>Ian Holsman wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Jean,
>>>I'll try to cut down the long emails now.
>>>
>>
>>Long emails are fine; it just might take a little time to read and
>>digest them. :-) But I have to admit I'm losing something here. In your
>>view, what are the 2 missions? I apologize in advance if I'm not reading
>>closely enough.
>
>
> 1 mission, 2 lists
>
> mission: Increase the participation of women at Apache
>
> ...
>
> each list would attract a different group of people.
>
> the first list is the one I think should be made of ASF
> members/comitters. (and probably danese as the exception). It would be
> where the decisions on how to best achieve the goals of the mission
> would be.
In essense, a women-pmc@apache.org ? Like the other pmc lists, that
would have the additional advantage of providing an umbrella for
handling any thorny issues in private that emerge on women@apache.org.
Sounds sensible to me.
> the 2nd could be open to all. should be it women only? maybe..
I wouldn't restrict it because men, too, can help women contribute at
Apache. Besides, at a practical level it really can be difficult to
determine the gender behind an email. I have received email asking "Are
you french or female?"
At any rate, the formation a pmc umbrella list certainly seems sensible
to me.
What do other think who have been participating in this discussion?
-jean
> but I think we should first look at the mission and get a plan going,
> instead of just rushing in and doing this before all of us have had
> some thought about it. in this case I think it is needed, don't get
> me wrong.. but we might find a better list purpose if we think about
> it for a little bit, and get the goals set out.
>
>
> 4 basic steps:
> analyze
> plan
> implement
> manage
>
>
> Oh.. I'm an australian.. and If you think my emails are hard to
> understand you should hear me talk ;-)
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Ian Holsman <kr...@gmail.com>.
On 8/12/05, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
> Ian Holsman wrote:
> > Hi Jean,
> > I'll try to cut down the long emails now.
> >
>
> Long emails are fine; it just might take a little time to read and
> digest them. :-) But I have to admit I'm losing something here. In your
> view, what are the 2 missions? I apologize in advance if I'm not reading
> closely enough.
1 mission, 2 lists
mission: Increase the participation of women at Apache
list: how to make apache a less threatening environment so as to
encourage more participation
AND
list: having a place where newbies get to learn the ropes.
the first is where people would discuss what needs to be done, and how
best to achieve it this would be more of a PR/OrgCulture related one
where people strategise and plan on how best to acheive the mission.
the 2nd list would be a offspring of that, where your new derby
comitter could go and learn all about jira, tigris, svn, forrest and
the likes.
each list would attract a different group of people.
the first list is the one I think should be made of ASF
members/comitters. (and probably danese as the exception). It would be
where the decisions on how to best achieve the goals of the mission
would be.
the 2nd could be open to all. should be it women only? maybe..
but I think we should first look at the mission and get a plan going,
instead of just rushing in and doing this before all of us have had
some thought about it. in this case I think it is needed, don't get
me wrong.. but we might find a better list purpose if we think about
it for a little bit, and get the goals set out.
4 basic steps:
analyze
plan
implement
manage
Oh.. I'm an australian.. and If you think my emails are hard to
understand you should hear me talk ;-)
>
> The mission I'm advocating from the 60,000 foot level is "Increase the
> participation of women at Apache", and I see the women@apache.org mail
> list as instrumental for enabling that. Diving down to a slightly lower
> altitude, the mail list could accommodate any number of activities that
> women@pache.org participants think might help, including discussing
> relevant issues, such as mail list participation, and helping less
> technically confident women contribute in ways that are useful to apache
> projects (the notion of "hand holding" and "connecting the Apache dots"
> become key here). I realize some of this crosses gender, but if the goal
> is to increase the participation of women, then a specifically "women"
> list is more likely to succeed.
>
> But I admit to being into a little "hand waving" here, especially with
> the "accommodate any number of activities that these participants think
> might help". I think the participants on this list should ultimately
> determine the goals, projects, and initiatives.
>
> And, oh, I'm a woman :-) I'm not always sure that's clear. I have one of
> those gender-neutral names and often find people assume I'm a man. This
> list isn't archived yet so I'll go ahead and introduce myself again for
> everyone who joined in the last couple days. I'm a committer on the
> Derby project. My background is 20 years database development, roughly
> the first half from the customer development angle (mostly Science
> Applications Int'l Corp) and the last half from the vendor angle (first
> Illustra, then Informix, now IBM).
>
> -jean
>
>
> > On 8/12/05, Jean T. Anderson <jta@bristowhil
> >
> >
> >>>You need a small group of people to organize and coordinate the
> >>>activities, and you need funding,
> >>
> >>Sorry -- I'm lost here. Why do we need funding for a mail list?
> >>
> >
> >
> > it's not the funding of the mailing list, it is the execution of the
> > ideas the list
> > suggests which might need the funding.
> >
> > Cultural changes that you suggested (making apache more conducive to
> > women) can not just happen with the click of your fingers.. these kind
> > of things can take years as I'm sure you are aware. so when I think
> > long-term I think it will need money to sustain it and the various
> > things it does... (ie.. getting a keynote speaker into ApacheCon to
> > talk about how to communicate in a non threatening manner would cost
> > money).
> >
> >
> >
> >>>OR for the women in apache to have a place to chat and network?
> >>>
> >>>i don't know what would be achieved by this which couldn't be acheived
> >>>by a general women @ opensource type list, which would ASF members
> >>>would also be a part of if they choose.
> >>
> >>It would, for example, provide an ideal place for (potential) new
> >>contributors to discuss and learn "how to's" at Apache.
> >
> >
> > then we have 2 different missions, and as such we really should have 2
> > different lists.
> > a "making apache more conducive to women",
> >
> > and a "womens network" or a "newbies network" to make it less gender specific.
> >
> >
> >>In any event, I don't think we'd want to discuss how to connect the dots
> >>at Apache on a general women's list outside Apache. That strikes me as
> >>an odd fit.
> >>
> >
> > yep .. I agree.
> >
> >
> >> -jean
> >>
> >
> > --Ian
> >
> >>>It would also lessen the weight of the list. by that I mean saying the
> >>>women members/comitters think X, or want to do Y is a pretty strong
> >>>message you can bring to the board.
> >>>
> >>>AND it also raises the possibility that the ASF dirty laundry gets
> >>>hung out to dry in other platforms.
> >>>
>
>
--
Ian@Holsman.net -- 03-9877-0909
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough. -
Mario Andretti
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Ian Holsman wrote:
> Hi Jean,
> I'll try to cut down the long emails now.
>
Long emails are fine; it just might take a little time to read and
digest them. :-) But I have to admit I'm losing something here. In your
view, what are the 2 missions? I apologize in advance if I'm not reading
closely enough.
The mission I'm advocating from the 60,000 foot level is "Increase the
participation of women at Apache", and I see the women@apache.org mail
list as instrumental for enabling that. Diving down to a slightly lower
altitude, the mail list could accommodate any number of activities that
women@pache.org participants think might help, including discussing
relevant issues, such as mail list participation, and helping less
technically confident women contribute in ways that are useful to apache
projects (the notion of "hand holding" and "connecting the Apache dots"
become key here). I realize some of this crosses gender, but if the goal
is to increase the participation of women, then a specifically "women"
list is more likely to succeed.
But I admit to being into a little "hand waving" here, especially with
the "accommodate any number of activities that these participants think
might help". I think the participants on this list should ultimately
determine the goals, projects, and initiatives.
And, oh, I'm a woman :-) I'm not always sure that's clear. I have one of
those gender-neutral names and often find people assume I'm a man. This
list isn't archived yet so I'll go ahead and introduce myself again for
everyone who joined in the last couple days. I'm a committer on the
Derby project. My background is 20 years database development, roughly
the first half from the customer development angle (mostly Science
Applications Int'l Corp) and the last half from the vendor angle (first
Illustra, then Informix, now IBM).
-jean
> On 8/12/05, Jean T. Anderson <jta@bristowhil
>
>
>>>You need a small group of people to organize and coordinate the
>>>activities, and you need funding,
>>
>>Sorry -- I'm lost here. Why do we need funding for a mail list?
>>
>
>
> it's not the funding of the mailing list, it is the execution of the
> ideas the list
> suggests which might need the funding.
>
> Cultural changes that you suggested (making apache more conducive to
> women) can not just happen with the click of your fingers.. these kind
> of things can take years as I'm sure you are aware. so when I think
> long-term I think it will need money to sustain it and the various
> things it does... (ie.. getting a keynote speaker into ApacheCon to
> talk about how to communicate in a non threatening manner would cost
> money).
>
>
>
>>>OR for the women in apache to have a place to chat and network?
>>>
>>>i don't know what would be achieved by this which couldn't be acheived
>>>by a general women @ opensource type list, which would ASF members
>>>would also be a part of if they choose.
>>
>>It would, for example, provide an ideal place for (potential) new
>>contributors to discuss and learn "how to's" at Apache.
>
>
> then we have 2 different missions, and as such we really should have 2
> different lists.
> a "making apache more conducive to women",
>
> and a "womens network" or a "newbies network" to make it less gender specific.
>
>
>>In any event, I don't think we'd want to discuss how to connect the dots
>>at Apache on a general women's list outside Apache. That strikes me as
>>an odd fit.
>>
>
> yep .. I agree.
>
>
>> -jean
>>
>
> --Ian
>
>>>It would also lessen the weight of the list. by that I mean saying the
>>>women members/comitters think X, or want to do Y is a pretty strong
>>>message you can bring to the board.
>>>
>>>AND it also raises the possibility that the ASF dirty laundry gets
>>>hung out to dry in other platforms.
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
susan wu wrote:
>
> We had sufficient interest and buy in to -discuss- and collaborate on
> the proposal, not to push it forward without modification.
>
> And why would you want to push something through without collaboration?
> Any effort will be far more successful if you win buy-in. Attempts to
> impose some agenda on an unwilling audience only serve to alienate you
> and distance you from your end goals.
My point exactly. However, we clearly have different perspectives
on what happened, and I've piped up too much as it is. So, carry on
and ignore me.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQv14uZrNPMCpn3XdAQIqggP/f2LSlCdWgcHzItbbP6G6R5vbnyJK6E4r
jsORiEMS/VXMQCoXz8/Uiv9wkymFNnwpHluwKMlbMt80IRqw9Fn+m+ZIJG/rtM6s
3BeoMN1QKXfo73P+IpBvwUMM9SkSLpb0qQ+rbFDBD3bGgky3wWpQ9zH2YKPY1gU2
6wZIoSCM1vU=
=GkuG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by susan wu <su...@arctic.org>.
>
> I largely disagree. When you get sufficient interest/buyin on an
> effort for it to get started, you don't open the ball by repurposing
> it.
We had sufficient interest and buy in to -discuss- and collaborate on the
proposal, not to push it forward without modification.
And why would you want to push something through without collaboration?
Any effort will be far more successful if you win buy-in. Attempts to
impose some agenda on an unwilling audience only serve to alienate you and
distance you from your end goals.
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
susan wu wrote:
>
> As we engage in dialogue, the original proposal will likely, and SHOULD,
> change, to reflect all of the input from interested parties.
I largely disagree. When you get sufficient interest/buyin on an
effort for it to get started, you don't open the ball by repurposing
it.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQvzB6JrNPMCpn3XdAQIIWAQA2rb7L38rB5lXguz5enS3EVyWg1RGOh9G
O9FvdQ+dCEudM62/Wlx/HGAqDx3dd3fWWs/At10cv00MBEqZg3W13NIWkBI6uKTc
mSYxzE6Q4keKvf3IPOy/Rq6Te3E8fj90B0FBn4nCPdzDReWutaP+S4IKcC0qVUTk
zn4GBH5B1n8=
=E7RM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by susan wu <su...@arctic.org>.
> Jean, Danese, correct me if I'm wrong (or please corroborate
> if I'm right), but I do NOT think that was the list's. It
> wasn't a matter of changing the ASF, but of educating and supporting
> women who want/have to participate there.
>
As we engage in dialogue, the original proposal will likely, and SHOULD,
change, to reflect all of the input from interested parties.
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> then we have 2 different missions, and as such we really should have
> 2 different lists. a "making apache more conducive to women",
Jean, Danese, correct me if I'm wrong (or please corroborate
if I'm right), but I do NOT think that was the list's. It
wasn't a matter of changing the ASF, but of educating and supporting
women who want/have to participate there.
> and a "womens network" or a "newbies network" to make it less gender
> specific.
This has been raised several times, and I think it has been fairly
conclusively shown that a 'gender neutral' approach is very much
NOT desired as a goal of this list, either. 'Women's network,'
perhaps.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQvyw25rNPMCpn3XdAQK3sAP/R/xiGekSNbOAjSGywVRQOlJJwvo54/2N
Lr4rOiCFbstfblNYqXD56F3A39Lgg7zAiGKfl3CDb9PfnsKVh/lBSeCJaQZJVcAY
naYhcLDVrtzj1sRMtsvbUBc5+gR/nh3oZAJ8zfwzG6oktIzj6UXgapj4MFcsTud+
QqZzw4wRBl8=
=MNzE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Ian Holsman <kr...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jean,
I'll try to cut down the long emails now.
On 8/12/05, Jean T. Anderson <jta@bristowhil
> > You need a small group of people to organize and coordinate the
> > activities, and you need funding,
>
> Sorry -- I'm lost here. Why do we need funding for a mail list?
>
it's not the funding of the mailing list, it is the execution of the
ideas the list
suggests which might need the funding.
Cultural changes that you suggested (making apache more conducive to
women) can not just happen with the click of your fingers.. these kind
of things can take years as I'm sure you are aware. so when I think
long-term I think it will need money to sustain it and the various
things it does... (ie.. getting a keynote speaker into ApacheCon to
talk about how to communicate in a non threatening manner would cost
money).
> > OR for the women in apache to have a place to chat and network?
> >
> > i don't know what would be achieved by this which couldn't be acheived
> > by a general women @ opensource type list, which would ASF members
> > would also be a part of if they choose.
>
> It would, for example, provide an ideal place for (potential) new
> contributors to discuss and learn "how to's" at Apache.
then we have 2 different missions, and as such we really should have 2
different lists.
a "making apache more conducive to women",
and a "womens network" or a "newbies network" to make it less gender specific.
> In any event, I don't think we'd want to discuss how to connect the dots
> at Apache on a general women's list outside Apache. That strikes me as
> an odd fit.
>
yep .. I agree.
> -jean
>
--Ian
> >
> > It would also lessen the weight of the list. by that I mean saying the
> > women members/comitters think X, or want to do Y is a pretty strong
> > message you can bring to the board.
> >
> > AND it also raises the possibility that the ASF dirty laundry gets
> > hung out to dry in other platforms.
> >
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by susan wu <su...@arctic.org>.
>
> Unless they're saying 'I think I want to know how the ASF works.' :-)
Ok, so is your +1 in support of a list whose purpose is similar to the
purpose Ian proposed as his 2nd list? To stimulate discussion and a create
a support network for women? It's unclear exactly what you are voting
for.
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>> you do not need 100 or so people chiming in what they think, who don't
>> know how the ASF works.
>
> I certainly agree with that!
Unless they're saying 'I think I want to know how the ASF works.' :-)
> But I'll add the same disclaimer I did the other day. I'm kind of
> focused on technical activities, and I certainly wouldn't suggest that
> this list be solely devoted to projects like the one I mentioned. It's
> just one example.
Don't worry, I'm kind of focussed on the psychological and social
aspects (as I suspect are some others here).
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQvyu55rNPMCpn3XdAQJe8gP/YbQQORr/iG/N5o2PHw0TGt4+fOiR6QGs
uuEGgS4OhsXBbOIzaKXG8dIz08uW32B2+YLtwvNMtcmf/DQbGJ0ZmaH76O7Qy34f
HjyCi7Jdj5bdevtlUqbB/wBW4Yl8xDkwiPDfQVrWqboM+4beQgvDnfCGZgrAFPg/
dE23MUJ/mtI=
=g2wF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Ian Holsman wrote:
> -1
>
> women@apache.org should be for ASF members/comitters.
>
> the reasoning is below.
> firstly is main aim of the list is to gain more women members (a
> PR/markerting issue)
>
Here are the goals Danese and I presented:
> Our first pass at goals would be:
>
> -raise awareness to make user groups especially more friendly (there is anecdotal evidence that some users are hesitant to post or to ask offline questions because of flames)
> -encourage more women developers to join Apache and to STAY
> -develop ways for less technically confident people to contribute in needed ways (yes, this might mean documentation and instructional materials, both user and developer oriented)
I'm not opposed to throwing these goals out and starting fresh, but I
disagree that the main aim is to gain more women members.
My aim is to increase participation by women in Apache projects. That
might ultimately lead them down a path to membership, but that's more of
a side effect.
> If the women@ list is a method to gain more members, than I question
> the list in general, as we have never done 'membership drives' before,
> but I would say having 20-30 people on a list designed to do a PRC
> type activity will fail.
In a sense this *is* a recruitment effort because we are trying to draw
in more women; hence, the desire to bring in non-committers. These are
the very women we want to help succeed participating on projects at
Apache. I'd like to think some will go on to become committers and maybe
even members. In the meantime, the contributions they make to Apache
will be worthwhile in their own right.
> You need a small group of people to organize and coordinate the
> activities, and you need funding,
Sorry -- I'm lost here. Why do we need funding for a mail list?
> you do not need 100 or so people chiming in what they think, who don't
> know how the ASF works.
I certainly agree with that!
> OR for the women in apache to have a place to chat and network?
>
> i don't know what would be achieved by this which couldn't be acheived
> by a general women @ opensource type list, which would ASF members
> would also be a part of if they choose.
It would, for example, provide an ideal place for (potential) new
contributors to discuss and learn "how to's" at Apache. I gave an
example (a "success story") a couple days ago of a woman contributor on
the Derby project who provided a patch for the derby web site that added
documentation about the new Derby eclipse plug-in. Her expertise is
Derby and Eclipse. But to do this web site documentation project, she
learned how to work with forrest, she learned how to work with the
subversion repository at Apache to create a patch, and -- I forgot to
mention this the other day -- she also learned how to upload her patch
to a Jira issue.
The number of dots to connect (in this case forrest, subversion, and
jira) can sometimes feel overwhelming for somebody who is newly spinning
up. Forrest help is readily available at Apache, but instead of
additionally sending her to Atlassian lists for Jira help and Tigris.org
lists for subversion help, this list can provide some hand holding to
help participants connect all those dots in the Apache context.
But I'll add the same disclaimer I did the other day. I'm kind of
focused on technical activities, and I certainly wouldn't suggest that
this list be solely devoted to projects like the one I mentioned. It's
just one example.
In any event, I don't think we'd want to discuss how to connect the dots
at Apache on a general women's list outside Apache. That strikes me as
an odd fit.
-jean
>
> It would also lessen the weight of the list. by that I mean saying the
> women members/comitters think X, or want to do Y is a pretty strong
> message you can bring to the board.
>
> AND it also raises the possibility that the ASF dirty laundry gets
> hung out to dry in other platforms.
>
> so in summary:
> I am all for a place for women to network, or establishing a drive to
> gain more members, but NOT for non-ASF'ers to be involved. There are
> other forums for that.
>
> (I think my vote is binding, but I don't know the rules in this list)
>
> On 8/12/05, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
>
>>Currently subscriptions to women@apache.org are moderated, and they will
>>continue to be moderated until the participants decide to change that
>>policy.
>>
>>This vote is to determine if the participants on this list agree to
>>allow subscriptions by non-committers.
>>
>>[ ] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
>>[ ] 0: I don't care
>>[ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
>>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> yes i agree to a point, but not enough to sway my vote from -1.
I think I should point out that, according to the general Apache
methodology, a -1 vote here IS NOT a veto since this isn't a
technical issue. So nobody should lose heart because of a -1 --
any more than they should crow because they see three +1s.
:-)
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQvyuQ5rNPMCpn3XdAQIiiAP9Ef9Fp3inPQ2y2xy9phdXLbjfBIIDq8bk
ujUnrXHRTPAXR92lVdT5em/xmsBl8e5WkpJO0CcqpUANi+Wg1i/OHg2ggTmOLS48
9NTvx2lDF8jnYqo49Z++YYSiuX87/euuJ0500h6yODSjzW+gSCbSdRZ9KYw0twfi
FHrOfrzVjJ0=
=dGht
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Ian Holsman <kr...@gmail.com>.
On 8/12/05, Berin Loritsch <bl...@d-haven.org> wrote:
> Ian Holsman wrote:
> Just bear in mind that you are also precluding the possibility of
> getting viewpoints from people who may be involved very much, although
> not a committer or member yet. I personally think that such input would
> be valuable as we are trying to determine the scope of what is going on
> here.
>
>
Hi Berin.
yes i agree to a point, but not enough to sway my vote from -1.
(I would also like to see people who voted +1 give an explanation on
why they think it is a good idea, but the vote didn't call for that..
so it appears a bit biased)
I think it comes down to what the list is for. if it is for
networking, then hey why are all these men here, and as it seems
dominating the conversations?
If it is for PR/member drive..
it depends on what you are aiming at.
are you trying to:
- get more womein involved in open source
- get more women involved in the ASF who are not there already
- get the women who are on the sidelines, and get them to convert into
comitters/members
- keep the women we have
while outsiders (and a great deal of books) could help address this
issue, this shouldn't be directly adddressed by the ASF. we are not
the opensource world. the OSS should be looking at those issues, and
we should co-ordinate with them about those to make sure we aren't
doing the wrong thing here.
points 2-4 are slightly different, if we assume the OSS is doing their
bit about women in open source we need to get insights on how/why the
ASF isn't, or how it could improve. how can outsiders help with this?
they don't know what the ASF is doing as they aren't in there, unless
your thinking we need a 'fresh unopinionated view' to tell us where we
are wrong.. but our culture would tell that person to go shove it, as
they haven't earn't their credibility with the other members.
also.. it isn't all about viewpoints, it is about getting the job done.
While the viewpoints might be valid it will also make the next part of
the job (actioning them) much harder.
I think it would be much easier for this to be done from the inside
going out (ASF members fixing it themselves, and using their networks
to achieve the result), not the outside in (strangers coming in and
telling us what to do)
The only role for a external consultant in a organisation is to
deliver the bad news the boss has. We don't need one.
--Ian
--
Ian@Holsman.net -- 03-9877-0909
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough. -
Mario Andretti
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@d-haven.org>.
Ian Holsman wrote:
>in general YES I think we should throw non-ASF'ers out.
>
>but in Danese's case, as she is on the OSS board she could act as a
>liason between
>the women's group on here, and the bigger OSS effort which seems to be
>going on at this
>stage.
>
>Alot of the issues that the ASF group would raise would be similar to
>the ones found on other womens lists, she could help by providing
>advice and guidance on what other groups have found and how they
>approach it, and help with strategic focus.
>
Just bear in mind that you are also precluding the possibility of
getting viewpoints from people who may be involved very much, although
not a committer or member yet. I personally think that such input would
be valuable as we are trying to determine the scope of what is going on
here.
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Ian Holsman <kr...@gmail.com>.
in general YES I think we should throw non-ASF'ers out.
but in Danese's case, as she is on the OSS board she could act as a
liason between
the women's group on here, and the bigger OSS effort which seems to be
going on at this
stage.
Alot of the issues that the ASF group would raise would be similar to
the ones found on other womens lists, she could help by providing
advice and guidance on what other groups have found and how they
approach it, and help with strategic focus.
BUT she should be a liason, not have the final say, she is not a ASF
member, and since I have been in the ASF I have never seen her name on
any mailing list I follow (board@, prc@, or some of the code ones), so
she would be ill suited to speak for the ASF for those 2 reasons.
On 8/12/05, Brian W. Fitzpatrick <fi...@red-bean.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 07:49 +1000, Ian Holsman wrote:
> > -1
> >
> > women@apache.org should be for ASF members/comitters.
>
> ...
>
> > so in summary:
> > I am all for a place for women to network, or establishing a drive to
> > gain more members, but NOT for non-ASF'ers to be involved. There are
> > other forums for that.
>
> So are you saying that we should throw Danese out since she's not an ASF
> member/committer?
>
> -Fitz
>
>
--
Ian@Holsman.net -- 03-9877-0909
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough. -
Mario Andretti
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by "Brian W. Fitzpatrick" <fi...@red-bean.com>.
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 07:49 +1000, Ian Holsman wrote:
> -1
>
> women@apache.org should be for ASF members/comitters.
...
> so in summary:
> I am all for a place for women to network, or establishing a drive to
> gain more members, but NOT for non-ASF'ers to be involved. There are
> other forums for that.
So are you saying that we should throw Danese out since she's not an ASF
member/committer?
-Fitz
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Ian Holsman <kr...@gmail.com>.
-1
women@apache.org should be for ASF members/comitters.
the reasoning is below.
firstly is main aim of the list is to gain more women members (a
PR/markerting issue)
If the women@ list is a method to gain more members, than I question
the list in general, as we have never done 'membership drives' before,
but I would say having 20-30 people on a list designed to do a PRC
type activity will fail.
You need a small group of people to organize and coordinate the
activities, and you need funding,
you do not need 100 or so people chiming in what they think, who don't
know how the ASF works.
OR for the women in apache to have a place to chat and network?
i don't know what would be achieved by this which couldn't be acheived
by a general women @ opensource type list, which would ASF members
would also be a part of if they choose.
It would also lessen the weight of the list. by that I mean saying the
women members/comitters think X, or want to do Y is a pretty strong
message you can bring to the board.
AND it also raises the possibility that the ASF dirty laundry gets
hung out to dry in other platforms.
so in summary:
I am all for a place for women to network, or establishing a drive to
gain more members, but NOT for non-ASF'ers to be involved. There are
other forums for that.
(I think my vote is binding, but I don't know the rules in this list)
On 8/12/05, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
> Currently subscriptions to women@apache.org are moderated, and they will
> continue to be moderated until the participants decide to change that
> policy.
>
> This vote is to determine if the participants on this list agree to
> allow subscriptions by non-committers.
>
> [ ] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
> [ ] 0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
>
--
Ian@Holsman.net -- 03-9877-0909
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough. -
Mario Andretti
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> > Currently subscriptions to women@apache.org are moderated, and they will
> > continue to be moderated until the participants decide to change that
> > policy.
> >
> > This vote is to determine if the participants on this list agree to
> > allow subscriptions by non-committers.
> >
> > [ ] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
> > [ ] 0: I don't care
> > [ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
>
> It is way too early for this decision.
>
> The first thing that we should do is to
> concisely define the purpose of this list.
> Say 50 words that can be sent in response to
> the women-info@a.o command.
>
> When we know what our purpose is, then the
> audience will become apparent, and there will
> probably be no need to vote.
I still think that it is too early.
I vote -1. My reasons are similar to Ian's. I would rather
a small group: existing committers and other invited people
e.g. Danese. Discuss the topics first among people who are
already familiar, get some documentation happening, then
perhaps open it to a wider audience.
Maybe that is already what the vote aims to decide.
This is why i would prefer to discuss a topic before
leaping into a Vote thread. If the vote is about
"invited non-committers" then +1.
-David
women@apache.org mail list description
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> On Aug 12, 2005, at 4:32 AM, David Crossley wrote:
>> <snippage>
>> It is way too early for this decision.
>>
>> The first thing that we should do is to
>> concisely define the purpose of this list.
>> Say 50 words that can be sent in response to
>> the women-info@a.o command.
>>
>> When we know what our purpose is, then the
>> audience will become apparent, and there will
>> probably be no need to vote.
>
>
> "Increase the participation of women at the ASF"
here's a more verbose suggestion:
The women@apache.org mailing list encourages participation by women
in Apache Software Foundation projects. This list is open to anyone who
participates in an Apache project to discuss topics that will promote
even greater participation and contributions by women. Public archives
are available for this list.
If that's too general and we want to narrow the focus (eliminate
"strategic" and emphasize "tactical"):
The women@apache.org mailing list encourages participation by women
in Apache Software Foundation projects. This list is open to anyone who
participates in an Apache project to discuss topics that will promote
even greater participation and contributions by women, including what
the ASF is and how it works as well as practical aspects of how to
participate on a project, such as how to use the Apache infrastructure
tools (web sites, source repositories, bug management tools). Public
archives are available for this list.
The second seems overly focused to me, but I'm open to suggestion and
modification.
-jean
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by "Brian W. Fitzpatrick" <fi...@red-bean.com>.
On Aug 12, 2005, at 4:32 AM, David Crossley wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>> Currently subscriptions to women@apache.org are moderated, and
>> they will
>> continue to be moderated until the participants decide to change that
>> policy.
>>
>> This vote is to determine if the participants on this list agree to
>> allow subscriptions by non-committers.
>>
>> [ ] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
>> [ ] 0: I don't care
>> [ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
>>
>
> It is way too early for this decision.
>
> The first thing that we should do is to
> concisely define the purpose of this list.
> Say 50 words that can be sent in response to
> the women-info@a.o command.
>
> When we know what our purpose is, then the
> audience will become apparent, and there will
> probably be no need to vote.
"Increase the participation of women at the ASF"
-Fitz
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Currently subscriptions to women@apache.org are moderated, and they will
> continue to be moderated until the participants decide to change that
> policy.
>
> This vote is to determine if the participants on this list agree to
> allow subscriptions by non-committers.
>
> [ ] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
> [ ] 0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
It is way too early for this decision.
The first thing that we should do is to
concisely define the purpose of this list.
Say 50 words that can be sent in response to
the women-info@a.o command.
When we know what our purpose is, then the
audience will become apparent, and there will
probably be no need to vote.
-David
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Danese Cooper wrote:
> ...
> +1 as well...although I'm not sure I'm allowed to vote :-)
> ...
on apache lists anyone can vote -- though the vote may not be binding.
My goal is to flush any concerns out into the open, resolve them, and
avoid a post 3 weeks from now that says "Hey, who decided it was ok to
allow non-committers to join?" It's easier to point to a single
[RESULT][VOTE] summary than to a tangled thread with many posts to wade
through.
-jean
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com>.
> [X ] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
+1 as well...although I'm not sure I'm allowed to vote :-)
Danese
On Aug 11, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Currently subscriptions to women@apache.org are moderated, and they
> will continue to be moderated until the participants decide to
> change that policy.
>
> This vote is to determine if the participants on this list agree to
> allow subscriptions by non-committers.
>
> [X ] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
> [ ] 0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
>
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
On 8/12/05, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
> We now have 5 in favour, 1 'don't care', and 1 opposed, out of 11
> subscribers. Four (4) people have not yet expressed a clear opinion.
I believe we have 6 in favor: Jean, Danese, Berin, Ted, Cliff, Ken
Cliff
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Currently subscriptions to women@apache.org are moderated, and they will
> continue to be moderated until the participants decide to change that
> policy.
[X] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
[ ] 0: I don't care
[ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
We now have 5 in favour, 1 'don't care', and 1 opposed, out of 11
subscribers. Four (4) people have not yet expressed a clear opinion.
That's pretty good -- nay, excellent -- for a vote that isn't
even 24 hours old yet. :-)
We also have 4 people who have offered remarks that indicate that
the purpose of this list is sufficiently unclear to them that the
vote is premature and meaningless. Those are not the same 4 as
have not yet voted.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQvzCQ5rNPMCpn3XdAQLA0QP/dV6utbw5kxFWgjSGxnVpcxHKIuYdT1Ki
pFs8VSketCsBPXWrqpFzA4WCu6Y+d5/89M64g1PYsXCxVKN/RnrS4H8nCwGpigUb
9n9lNWZcsdpZZRro+l0DfOnhR7jyDMAskfi3v9K2FbGE3Ef5vWVn142TC3eWTTq1
CP+qbo+Ayc8=
=IFGV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] Approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@d-haven.org>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Currently subscriptions to women@apache.org are moderated, and they
> will continue to be moderated until the participants decide to change
> that policy.
>
> This vote is to determine if the participants on this list agree to
> allow subscriptions by non-committers.
+1
>
> [X] 1: Yes, I approve adding non-committers to women@apache.org
> [ ] 0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: No (please add an explanation)
>
>