My personal opinion is tweets #1 and #2 were inappropriate because they are clearly not positive. I think an ASF project can differentiate itself against commercial "competitors", even those organizations that have made contributions to the project in the past. However the differentiation should have sufficient context to be clearly positive. Given the medium is Twitter, and it's safe to assume competitive comparisons might be contentious whether positively expressed or not (certainly if not), and 140 chars simply cannot convey sufficient contextual information, such a comparison as tweeted is best a link to a post on blogs.apache.org or a permalink to a post on this list on the Apache mail archives. I'm sure we can just do this sort of thing going forward.
I would not be in favor of formal process to bless (or not) tweets on the "official" handle for this project. In fact I vetoed this notion when it came up for a vote on private@. Disagreements are never actually settled with process and red tape. I'm interested in the basis of the notion that a project can have an official Twitter account. We don't actually have one, managed by ASF infrastructure. No project does. What we have are various individuals with accounts, maybe sharing passwords, who usually are - but are not guaranteed to! - affiliated with the project. Therefore as individuals we need to work this out, there can be no ASF process here. What technical limitation do we have to enforce decisions? What does "represent the project" even mean? We clearly don't have a united opinion, nor should we be, being a project made up of individuals. We can't ask other project members not to say something simply because they criticize our employer. On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > Now, why the criticism or negativity has to be banned? What if a negative > expression is the last resort that keep you intellectually honest? Shall > one > just suppress it in the interest of political correctness? Let's looks at > some > examples, shall we? Here are the choices I think we are facing: > > - the handle shouldn't be posting anything remotely negative (e.g. be very > politically correct) > > or > > - be able to express a technical opinion and be in the position to > criticize > a vendor for, as the examples go, deviating from project architecture > yet > using its bits in a way not intended for > > But what are these negative comments? In example: > > "VendorA is bad because they don't contribute ThingB to Bigtop" has a > negative connotation to it. > > however > > "VendorA breaks compatibility with open OS-standards" is a simple > statement > of facts and shouldn't be a subject to any kind of censorship. And it is > more informative and helpful for users than lukewarm > > "VendorB still complies to open OS-standards" > > I hope everyone here can see the semantical difference. And it isn't > negative, > nor mud-slinging, nor inhospitable. It is a simple reflection of the > reality > without resorting to a technical double-speak. I believe we'll do a > disservice > to our users if we won't express in clear terms the realities of the > technology we are building and why it's sensible to make choice A instead > of B. > Can such stance be allowed for the project to have? I guess we're about to > figure out. > > Shall we have formal rules for using projects' twitter handle? > Sure, why not! > Will CloudStack's policy work for us? > Quite possible. > Shall we be able to express our technical and architectural views in the > public? > ABSOLUTELY! And if a company X feels uncomfortable about it then > perhaps it > needs to do something differently, instead of trying to > shush > the descending voices in the community. > > So what would it be: cozy feeling of political correctness or, sometimes > inconvenient, intellectual honesty? > > Cos > > On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 05:25PM, Sean Mackrory wrote: > > All, > > > > I have been asked by multiple members of the PMC to restart a discussion > on > > this mailing list that has been getting discussed on the private mailing > > list. I will simply start by stating my own take on the issue, as I do > not > > want to misrepresent or overrepresent anyone else's views as already > shared > > on that private mailing list. I would encourage those that already posted > > in the previous thread to re-share their input themselves. > > > > A member of the community raised concern about some tweets that were made > > on Twitter through the handle @ASFbigtop about other organizations. It is > > clear from the discussion that some tweets from that account do not > > represent consensus among the Bigtop PMC. In my view, some of the tweets > on > > that account have been factually incorrect, overly biased by the author's > > own affiliations and opinions, and they are harmful to the community. > There > > is understandable disagreement about how to decide what should be tweeted > > in the name of the project in the future as drawing a line here is hard > and > > none of us want bureaucracy for it's own sake. However I believe that > given > > discussion so far, the burden to justify future tweets lies with the > person > > or people who will make them. In general, I believe a Twitter account > that > > bears the name of the project needs to be focused entirely on building > > community and advancing the project, and should not be controlled > unchecked > > by a single individual or even just a portion of the community. There are > > certainly exceptions, but I would say that for the most part sarcasm, > > criticism and negativity has no place on that account, especially when it > > is so far from being a consensus of the entire community. > > > > For the sake of full disclosure regarding which "hat" I'm wearing - I am > > employed by one of the organizations that have been criticized, however I > > believe my comments are consistent with the principles that should > underly > > an Apache community. I don't believe any of us can completely remove our > > own biases, but that is precisely why I think the tweets that have been > > discussed belong on personal accounts - so that even tweets that are > > considered factual by the author are understood in the context of who > that > > author is. I would love for the project to have an active Twitter > presence > > to congratulate contributors, interact with users, and advance the > project. > > I have full respect for any member of this community who agrees or voices > > criticism of organizations with whom they disagree - I just don't think > it > > belongs on the project's Twitter handle, and it certainly doesn't belong > > there when it doesn't really represent the project. > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
