Like others, I don't see how the wording "unprofessional" impacts the
foundation.
I also don't see where Ross agrees with the issue. He just stated an
alternative wording.
However, I do not see any issue with using Ross' suggestion as it is
building consensus.
Before I do anything, I would like to get the confirmation from Cos
that, provided the current proposal is amended with "Informal voice is
OK, but keep it factual and welcoming", he would become a +1.
Also, if we are going to restart the vote, I would like include as well
another proposal from @private to replace "competing" with "related or
similar".
Therefore I see two options:
0/ We let this vote run its course (looks like it is going to pass with
current tally), and then I will propose right away a second vote to
amend the proposal with the two changes described above.
1/ We restart the vote with the two changes described above included.
So either way we should end up with a Social Media Guideline which
satisfies everyone.
Given that "unprofessional" is a non-issue and that I would rather have
A policy rather than no policy, I am probably going towards 0/.
Thanks,
Bruno
On 03/17/2015 03:37 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
Thank you for agreeing.
Except for this minor point of contention on language, we are otherwise all
on the same page.
Let's make the correction so Cos can retract his -1.
I am conditionally +1 unless after this pending edit the result rubs me the
wrong way. (But I doubt that will happen.)
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote:
If this is the way you prefer to frame your agreement - I am fine with it
:)
Thank you
Cos
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:38PM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
I still don't think we need to change that wording, but I'd accept Ross's
suggestion of "Informal voice is OK, but keep it factual and welcoming".
A.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>
wrote:
Ross replied to Bruno's email to board@ with his recommendation. So,
it
makes
two of us who see the issue with using word 'professional'.
My -1 still stands, until it is resolved.
Cos
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 06:40PM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
Huh? I still don't see anything about the term unprofessional.
On Mar 16, 2015 6:31 PM, "Konstantin Boudnik" <[email protected]>
wrote:
I guess my search-foo is mightier http://s.apache.org/ue
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 04:18PM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
I don't see anything like that on that thread.
A.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 03:45PM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
I can't find that anywhere - link? Subject of the thread?
"Reply to the board report comment" I believe
A.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 03:26PM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
What would be an acceptable alternative? "Undignified"?
"Disreputable"?
"Classless"? I can't think of a word that fits better
than
"unprofessional", and nitpicking over our volunteer
status
just
feels
silly.
You can direct your dissatisfaction to Ross G. who brough
this
point
in the
recent thread on the board@
I am just a messenger.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
[email protected]>
wrote:
I don't want to second-guess people who might be
making any
sort of
judgement
about Foundation status. Hence, my -1 stands unless we
have a
correction,
I've
requested.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 04:11PM, Sean Mackrory wrote:
If individuals conduct themselves in a business-like
fashion, it
doesn't
make something a business. I don't see how that
makes the
guidelines
confusing at all.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 03:49PM, Sean Mackrory
wrote:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional
1 c (1) : characterized by or conforming to the
technical or
ethical
standards of a profession (2) : exhibiting a
courteous,
conscientious, and generally businesslike manner
in
the
workplace
Thanks for your help: businesslike is keywork here.
Please
see
my
initial
comment about volunteering for the project and
what it
really
means.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Konstantin
Boudnik <
[email protected]>
wrote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/professional
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 03:33PM, Sean Mackrory
wrote:
but 'professional' always assumes 'getting
paid
for
produced
good
or
services'
That is not true. It is often used to refer
to
conducting
one's
self
in a
dignified, ethical way.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Mark Grover
<
[email protected]>
wrote:
Yeah, I agree with you Cos - we may be
splitting
hairs
here. I
personally
find that usage of professional perfectly
fine
in
the
context
being
used.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Konstantin
Boudnik <
[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 03:06PM, Sean
Mackrory
wrote:
I'm a +1.
Re: Cos's suggestions, I believe by
"unprofessional"
they
are
referring
to
anything contrary to the ethics and
conduct
associated
with a
profession.
See some of the definitions here:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unprofessional.
I'm
fine
with the
wording
Not to steal the thread, but
'professional'
always
assumes
'getting
paid
for
produced good or services'. If you aren't
paid -
it's
your
hobby
or
charity.
Thus, ASF isn't a professional
association
but a
503(c)
organization.
Perhaps
I am splitting the hairs here but when
you're
dealing
with
one of
those
three-letters agencies, you'd better be
careful.
with or without the suggested changes.
Doesn't
affect
my +1
either
way.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Andre
Arcilla
<
[email protected]
wrote:
+1. Thanks. I hope the guidelines
will
finally
put
the
twitter
issue
to
rest.
Andre
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:48 AM,
Konstantin
Boudnik
<
[email protected]
wrote:
I want to offer a couple of
corrections to
the
language,
without
changing
the
overall semantics:
- Never post anything via social
media you
wouldn't
want
to
see
reported
on
news sites.
if pretty vague. What if the
intention
is
exactly
to
see
this
on
the
news
sites? How about something like
this
instead:
Anything said in public is fair
game
for
press.
Any info published in the
social
media
can be
interpreted to
for
the
advantage of the project or
otherwise. Be
thoughtful
of
the
possible
consequences of the posts.
- Informal voice is OK,
unprofessional is
not.
Apache isn't a professional
organization.
By
definition,
all
participants
are
volunteers (which is reflected in
the
non-profit
status of
the
Foundation).
Hence, I don't see how
"unprofessional"
can fit
into
this.
My
command of
English isn't so great, so perhaps
someone
else
would
be
able
to
better
convey
the proper meaning?
- Bigtop does not have "sponsors",
events
and
activities
have
sponsors.
This clause is redundant, I
believe.
This
is
the
very
core
definition of
ASF,
so we don't need to make a clumsy
attempt
to
reiterate
ASF
public
policy
https://www.apache.org/foundation/sponsorship.html
Like the rest of it!
+1 contingent that we can address
the
above.
Cos
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 01:10AM,
Bruno
MahИ
wrote:
Hi,
As per discussion on [0] and
[1], we
seem to
have
built
consensus
on
the
need for some Social Media
Guidelines
as
well
as
what
these
guidelines
should be.
This email is about voting the
adoption
of
the
guidelines as
described
on:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53740308
- v1
I will also attach the guidelines
below
my
email
for
convenience
and
reference.
+1 : To accept the Social Media
Guidelines as
currently
described
on
the
wiki and attached to this email
0 : No opinion one way or the
other
-1 : To reject the Social Media
Guidelines as
currently
described
on
the
wiki and attached to this email
The vote shall be open for at
least
72
hours
and
will be
closed
on
Thursday,
March 19th at 01:00 PST.
Thanks,
Bruno
[0]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/bigtop-dev/201503.mbox/%3CCAGC%2B2MuPny%3D6HcO_OMRU-i-T%2BDcE5-5CfGabrWMFM%3DU5P666qQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/bigtop-dev/201503.mbox/%3C550131E4.2090802%40bmahe.net%3E
======================================================================================
Social Media Guidelines
<
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BIGTOP/Social+Media+Guidelines
This document is a proposal
currently
under
discussion -
it
has
not
yet been accepted by the Bigtop
community.
The original text was taken from
Apache
Cloudstack's
Social
Media
Guidelines: Social Media
Guidelines <
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Social+Media+Guidelines
Apache Bigtop Social Media
Guidelines
The Apache Bigtop project has a
Twitter
account
(@ASFBigtop)
that
it
can use to spread news about the
project
and
promote
the
project.
* Apache Bigtop Social Media
Guidelines
<
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Social+Media+Guidelines#SocialMediaGuidelines-ApacheCloudStackSocialMediaGuidelines
o Access to Social Media
Accounts
<
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Social+Media+Guidelines#SocialMediaGuidelines-AccesstoSocialMediaAccounts
o Do's and Don'ts for Social
Media
<
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Social+Media+Guidelines#SocialMediaGuidelines-Do%27sandDon%27tsforSocialMedia
Access to Social Media
Accounts
Access to the social media
accounts
can
be
granted
to any
committer
or PMC member who would like to
participate.
When
possible,
access
will be through Hootsuite or
another
tool
that
does
not
require
disseminating the login
credentials.
Do's and Don'ts for Social
Media
Before posting anything, you'll
want
to
familiarize
yourself
with
Apache's Media and Analyst
Relations
<
http://www.apache.org/press/
page and brand management page
<
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
.
Whether you're posting from a
personal
account
*about*
Apache
Bigtop
or posting from one of the
official
accounts,
there
are
a few
things
you want to keep in mind.
* *Anything said in public is
fair
game
for
press.*
o Never post anything via
social
media
you
wouldn't
want to
see
reported on news sites.
* Make sure what you're
saying/sharing
is
appropriate
for
all
audiences, and reflects well
on
Apache
Bigtop.
o Be polite when talking
about
Bigtop
and
responding to
questions.
o Informal voice is OK,
unprofessional
is
not.
o Absolutely no use of NSFW
language,
images, or
scenarios
when
using official Apache
Bigtop
accounts
-
and
avoid
associating
Apache Bigtop with
anything
that
is
likely to
be
considered
offensive.
* Share relevant, positive
information.
o Feel free to share stories
about
Bigtop,
whether
they
come
from
the Bigtop community, tech
press,
or
folks
outside of
the
press
and community.
o Avoid sharing negative
stories
about
"competing"
projects.
o Keep posts/reposts
relevant.
Everybody
loves
LOLCats,
but
it's
probably best not to share
them
from
the
official
Bigtop
social
media accounts.
o Please share event
information *so
long as
it's
Bigtop-related*.
/e.g./ Promoting an event
where
there
are
talks
about
Bigtop is
spot-on. Promoting an
event
only
because a
vendor
that has
an
interest in Bigtop is
participating
would
be
outside
the
scope
of Bigtop social media
accounts.
* Be sure information is public
o Companies sometimes
discuss
plans/ideas
informally at
events.
It's often a good idea to
ask
before
sharing
information
on
social media if it might
be
considered
non-public.
(For
example,
information presented
during a
talk
should be
fair
game.
Information shared over
dinner may
not be
for
public
dissemination.)
* Bigtop does not have
"sponsors",
events
and
activities
have
sponsors.
o Avoid language like
/$foo_company
is
sponsoring
the
Apache
Bigtop project/.
o Companies *can* sponsor
events and
activities. For
example,
/$foo_company is hosting a
Bigtop
meetup
in
Atlanta
this
weekend/.
* Don't use Apache Bigtop social
media
accounts
to
promote
unrelated
commercial activities.
* *When in doubt, ask*
o If you're unclear on
whether a
post or
item
is OK,
ask on
the
project mailing list. The
other
contributors
on
the
list
will
*always* be happy to
discuss
and
guide
other
contributors
on
what is and isn't
appropriate
for
our
social
media
activities.
