diversity

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>]

On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> I posted an email earlier today where I discussed my confusion over the diversity requirement.  I'm not comfortable doing anything without getting some feedback on whether the diversity requirement, as currently stated on the wiki, is correct or whether diversity should simply be measured by how a project makes its decisions as Roy suggests.  

There is no diversity requirement at the ASF.  There is a behavior
requirement for graduation and a behavior requirement for TLPs.
We must not confuse the two.  If the Incubator says that there is a
diversity requirement for graduation, ignore it (or at least figure
out what the docs were supposed to say and then do that).
I'd urge folks to fix the docs, but I know where that leads ...
and I have no cycles to spare.

A diversity requirement would mean that a person's employment
status impacts their ability to participate here.  IOW, it would
create a perverse incentive for them not to be employed.

Now, I'll explain why ...

Everyone here participates as volunteers, even when they are
employed by someone else and that employment pays them to contribute
here.  If we set requirements on diversity, we are telling potential
employers of our volunteers that they should not hire those
volunteers who happen to work on the same project.  They should not
offer them employment.  They should not pay them well.  They
should not encourage their other employees to contribute here.

I hope that clarifies the situation.

I will not tolerate a perverse incentive that punishes our existing
volunteers or prevents additional volunteers from joining our projects.
That is far worse than a project that happens to be dominated by
one employer's volunteers (assuming they still *behave* as an
Apache project).

This is not a theoretical issue.  How long ago was it that Day
hired Jukka --- a spectacularly productive dude who lived in Finland?
This very issue came up at the time.  Is it safe to hire Jukka when
he represents most of the diversity of Jackrabbit (at the time,
still in Incubator)?

Do you have any idea how f*&$ing insane it would have been
if we had decided not to hire Jukka?  If we had backed off because
of a frigging diversity requirement?  My mind boggles at the loss.

Or what if Day had hired him and then said he can't participate
in Jackrabbit?  How much damage would that have done to Apache?
IMO, far more than anything we'd ever gain from enforcing an
arbitrary quota for PMC composition.

I don't know about the rest of you folks, but I happen to like
getting paid while still contributing at Apache.  I think it has
worked out well for both organizations, and for countless others
downstream.  I wouldn't mind getting paid more.  Hence, we don't
allow perverse incentives that interfere with our volunteers'
future prospects for gainful employment.  It would be wrong,
even if it is well-intentioned.

....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: diversity

[Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>]

On 6 June 2012 03:46, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is no diversity requirement at the ASF.
>
> On one hand, I definitely agree with you.  Derby graduated without
> meeting the diversity requirement.

On the one hand I agree too, on the other hand...

> That being said, I would like to bring up one thing: I have found it
> *very* handy when approached by potential new projects to mention a
> desire to bring on other participants.  This does not need to be
> expressed as a diversity requirement.  Reality dictates that it does,
> however, need to be an elevator pitch.

I've also found that the diversity "fact" plays extremely well when
talking to people who are considering contributing to a non-diverse
community. In my experience people are happy when you tell them that
"graduation from the incubator requires a healthy and diverse
community, that means there is minimal risk in the current dominating
force pushing you out of the community". The question to this is
always "how is that measured?" In the past I've always talked of
"three independent contributors". I see now, fro Roys argument that
this can be counterproductive.

In the future I will do a better job of defining "independent" but
like Sam I would be concerned if the "elevator pitch" were lost in a
rewrite of the documentation. Perhaps the best thing to do is change
the incubator site to point at the comdev page on project diversity:
http://community.apache.org/projectIndependence.html which includes
text such as:

"Apache projects should be managed independently, and PMCs must ensure
that they are acting in the best interests of the project as a whole.
Note that it is similarly important that the PMC clearly show this
independence within their project community. The perception of
existing and new participants within the community that the PMC is run
independently and without favoring any specific third parties over
others is important, to allow new contributors to feel comfortable
both joining the community and contributing their work. A community
that obviously favors one specific vendor in some exclusive way will
often discourage new contributors from competing vendors, which is an
issue for the long term health of the project."

Ross

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: diversity

[Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>]

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
>
> There is no diversity requirement at the ASF.

On one hand, I definitely agree with you.  Derby graduated without
meeting the diversity requirement.

That being said, I would like to bring up one thing: I have found it
*very* handy when approached by potential new projects to mention a
desire to bring on other participants.  This does not need to be
expressed as a diversity requirement.  Reality dictates that it does,
however, need to be an elevator pitch.

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: diversity

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>]

We have an Attic fer Christ-sakes, and in it lies the carcass of
Apache Harmony, which died because IBM pulled out.  BFD, that was
not a failing of the org, nor the IPMC, when it considered Harmony
for graduation.  Shit happens.


Our license does not promise that a project will live forever.  Neither
does our brand.  Let's please stop pretending it does.

+1 to Roy's and Benson's remarks


----- Original Message -----
> From: Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 8:24 PM
> Subject: Re: diversity
> 
>T he diversity (so-called) requirement is often stated in terms of the
> risk of the project being stranded if a company changes course. From
> what I see around the Foundation, this is usually a risk much akin to
> the risk of all the air molecules congregating in one corner of the
> room at the board F2F, asphyxiating the board members.
> 
> A project can also fail because it loses critical mass with no
> commercial participation at all. In either case, 'so what'? The
> Foundation advances its mission by facilitating whatever good stuff
> projects do. The Attic is just part of the lifecycle.
> 
> It seems to me that the real issue is community. TLP's wrestle with
> the complexities of the real commercial world all the time. Sometimes
> that gets noisy or ugly. But, as Roy writes, this is all a lot better
> than the alternative. In my opinion, this PMC has to be on the lookout
> for podlings which fail to build a real community and instead serve as
> a facade for a corporate effort. It's hard to see how a podling can
> demonstrate health in this respect without \some/ diversity in the
> community at some point in its career. But this does not translate
> into hard and fast rules about PMC membership.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: diversity

[Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>]

The diversity (so-called) requirement is often stated in terms of the
risk of the project being stranded if a company changes course. From
what I see around the Foundation, this is usually a risk much akin to
the risk of all the air molecules congregating in one corner of the
room at the board F2F, asphyxiating the board members.

A project can also fail because it loses critical mass with no
commercial participation at all. In either case, 'so what'? The
Foundation advances its mission by facilitating whatever good stuff
projects do. The Attic is just part of the lifecycle.

It seems to me that the real issue is community. TLP's wrestle with
the complexities of the real commercial world all the time. Sometimes
that gets noisy or ugly. But, as Roy writes, this is all a lot better
than the alternative. In my opinion, this PMC has to be on the lookout
for podlings which fail to build a real community and instead serve as
a facade for a corporate effort. It's hard to see how a podling can
demonstrate health in this respect without \some/ diversity in the
community at some point in its career. But this does not translate
into hard and fast rules about PMC membership.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: diversity

[Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org>]

Thanks Roy.  Yes, I would like the diversity section modified, although I'm not quite sure how I'd reword it. Even if it isn't, your post below can always be referenced again to aid anyone else who may be confused.  

Ralph

On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:00 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:

> On Jun 5, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> I posted an email earlier today where I discussed my confusion over the diversity requirement.  I'm not comfortable doing anything without getting some feedback on whether the diversity requirement, as currently stated on the wiki, is correct or whether diversity should simply be measured by how a project makes its decisions as Roy suggests.  
> 
> There is no diversity requirement at the ASF.  There is a behavior
> requirement for graduation and a behavior requirement for TLPs.
> We must not confuse the two.  If the Incubator says that there is a
> diversity requirement for graduation, ignore it (or at least figure
> out what the docs were supposed to say and then do that).
> I'd urge folks to fix the docs, but I know where that leads ...
> and I have no cycles to spare.
> 
> A diversity requirement would mean that a person's employment
> status impacts their ability to participate here.  IOW, it would
> create a perverse incentive for them not to be employed.
> 
> Now, I'll explain why ...
> 
> Everyone here participates as volunteers, even when they are
> employed by someone else and that employment pays them to contribute
> here.  If we set requirements on diversity, we are telling potential
> employers of our volunteers that they should not hire those
> volunteers who happen to work on the same project.  They should not
> offer them employment.  They should not pay them well.  They
> should not encourage their other employees to contribute here.
> 
> I hope that clarifies the situation.
> 
> I will not tolerate a perverse incentive that punishes our existing
> volunteers or prevents additional volunteers from joining our projects.
> That is far worse than a project that happens to be dominated by
> one employer's volunteers (assuming they still *behave* as an
> Apache project).
> 
> This is not a theoretical issue.  How long ago was it that Day
> hired Jukka --- a spectacularly productive dude who lived in Finland?
> This very issue came up at the time.  Is it safe to hire Jukka when
> he represents most of the diversity of Jackrabbit (at the time,
> still in Incubator)?
> 
> Do you have any idea how f*&$ing insane it would have been
> if we had decided not to hire Jukka?  If we had backed off because
> of a frigging diversity requirement?  My mind boggles at the loss.
> 
> Or what if Day had hired him and then said he can't participate
> in Jackrabbit?  How much damage would that have done to Apache?
> IMO, far more than anything we'd ever gain from enforcing an
> arbitrary quota for PMC composition.
> 
> I don't know about the rest of you folks, but I happen to like
> getting paid while still contributing at Apache.  I think it has
> worked out well for both organizations, and for countless others
> downstream.  I wouldn't mind getting paid more.  Hence, we don't
> allow perverse incentives that interfere with our volunteers'
> future prospects for gainful employment.  It would be wrong,
> even if it is well-intentioned.
> 
> ....Roy
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org