Bruno, I think the agreement to augment the wording has been already reached (see below). I am fully supporting for Andrew Purtell proposed below. The amount of time we are spending around this one word is outrageous. In the meanwhile - no one works on the release, which saddens me.
We are in full agreement on the spirit of these guidelines. And if wording can be amended to better express it - so be it. Hence, Ross' suggestion is right on the money IMO. There's no need to restart the vote or do any other cute bureaucratic stuff. Regards, Cos On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:32AM, Bruno Mahé wrote: > 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. > > > > >
