I am confused by these statements.
Nothing as of today prevents anyone from expressing his or her technical
and architectural views in public. Just use your personal account and
don't make your views as if it was the PMC's.
Also why criticizing anyone for deviating from a project architecture of
using its bits in ways not intended for? This is the basis of libre
software where anyone can reuse bits as they see fit and where sometimes
new ways are discovered along the way. I would actually be proud if some
of our bits are used in ways that were not intended for, even if it
violates some standard. It would be the proof that they solved the
particular problem that user was having.
Overall I would also not frame this discussion about "political
correctness" versus "intellectual honesty".
I would rather frame it toward: "How is Apache Bigtop tweeter account
going to further Apache Bigtop as a project and community?"
From there it is logical that criticizing vendors is not only violating
the ASF policy of being vendor neutral, but also is outside of the scope
of such account.
And as social media guidelines, I really like the one from CloudStack
(See [0]) as it answers pretty well the question of how to further
Apache Bigtop as a project and community.
Thanks,
Bruno
[0]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Social+Media+Guidelines
On 03/09/2015 11:53 AM, Konstantin Boudnik 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.
