I don’t think you’ll see that benefit. Privacy and safety from repudiation is a critical factor. You don't get that with a group sharing experiences and reports. In some cases I have agreed never to reveal the fact a complaint was made. That’s why I have only provided estimated counts. I don’t want to go back and count (in fact I don’t even keep the emails in some cases).
I'm not saying a group is bad, more choice is good. All I'm saying is that the primary goal of this focused activity is to deal with the specifics and thus extracting generalities in small numbers and non-specific summaries of unique situations is not so helpful. A more important goal, in the foundation rather than individual sense, is to deal with the root cause and make the approach being discussed here unnecessary. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Joseph Schaefer<mailto:joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 10:56 AM To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org> Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?) Also the reasoning about avoiding one man shows for software projects applies equally well to our ingress reporting strategy. Right now the only person who has acquired any substantial real word experience dealing with such reports is Ross, and perhaps a few other individuals who have proxied reports to him on behalf of another. Ross won't be president forever, and hence won't be the perpetual ultimate point of contact for abuse reports, should we still consider that a necessity. Hence saddling this responsibility to a small team has all the social advantages that a collaborative group of developers has over a one man effort, from both a survivability standpoint and a performance standpoint. Sent from my iPhone > On May 29, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID> > wrote: > > No the president is definitely not part of the problem Niclas. We're > discussing the delivery mechanism for the most part, as well as reasoning > about why some people insist on having an officer listed as the "ultimate" > reporting mechanism. > > > > My own experience dealing with sexual harassment reports when I was in > graduate school is that the reporters felt more comfortable reporting to > people like me who had relatively little formality in our power or position, > because what they were looking for was not a formal reprimand, but simply to > have the misbehavior stopped, without risk of retribution towards the > reporter. The higher you go up the formal ladder, the less likely you will > be successful from the reporter's standpoint in achieving a positive outcome > "from their perspective". Again it's about what's in the reporter's best > interests: sometimes all they want is a shoulder to cry on, and some empathy > for their plight. If we can positively change the situation for the better > that's great, but it certainly doesn't require a formal title at Apache to > achieve that goal, most of the time. But when it does, that can always > inform the discussion with the ombudsperson instead of being the starting > point for a report. > > > > On Friday, May 27, 2016 6:17 AM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: > > > Is a president-private@ mail forward out of the question? If the president > is part of the problem, then inform to send to board-private@ instead? > > Niclas > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > >> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Joe Schaefer >> <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: >>> Roman, >>> I've been beating the archiving problem with president@ like a dead >> horse for the past week- what >>> on earth have you been reading to avoid that reality? >> >> Archiving per se is not a problem. If the archive is only available to >> the board I'm border line ok with that. >> What I didn't know (and it didn't come up in your emails) is that >> there could be other folks having access >> to the content of president@ who may or may not be on the board. >> That's a big, huge problem. >> >>> Furthermore, I doubt president@ has an associated qmail owner file, >> which means any addresses listed in that alias that go to domains whose >> mail servers do strict SPF checks will BOUNCE email from major email >> providers who publish such rules, and those bounce mails may wind up being >> DROPPED by Apache's qmail server since it's attempt to deliver the bounce >> mail back to the sender may also be REJECTED by the original sending domain. >> >> That is also a good point. >> >>> All of this leads to problems that, while some are fixable, others are >> simply not. >>> We need a better strategy, and it should be collaborative rather than >> dictatorial. >> >> Not sure what you mean, but as I said ideally I'd like it to be an >> alias for an officer >> appointed by the board. That's my MVP. What Shane suggested builds up on >> that >> and may provide an even better solution. >> >> Thanks, >> Roman. > > > > > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fzest.apache.org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9759d515c87f4d91e6ce08d387ea8d09%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2u6lzVmy3y9prPlnDUvhuaZGEFV%2fOEherBdEsDStByA%3d > - New Energy for Java > > >
