On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:37PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > 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.
While someone might be arguing about semantics of benefits being neg. or pos. I'd rather not, because I think you're making a very good point here! A blog post would provide more ground to express and argument any ideas or details and twit can be just used to notify about such post. I like it, I really do! > 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. And I believe this is the whole point of having the discussion in the open: the consensus should and will be worked out via the process that was nothing but a sound success for the Foundation. Cos > 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)
