Yes. Thanks to everyone working this out.
Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Mark Thomas<mailto:ma...@apache.org> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 1:53 AM To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org> Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?) On 29/05/2016 23:07, Ross Gardler wrote: > For the record I do have training in counselling. Its fairly lightweight and > basically boils down to knowing how to respond and when to escalate to a > specialist. Ross, There looks to be general agreement that archiving abuse reports is a bad idea. On the grounds that handling these is a president@ function, are you happy for Marvin's patch to be applied where you are listed with your @a.o email as the only volunteer (and a note that the list is expected to be expanded shortly)? Assuming you are OK with this, we can get this done and then discuss expanding that list of volunteers and some of the other improvements that have been suggested. Mark > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Ross Gardler<mailto:ross.gard...@microsoft.com> > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 3:06 PM > To: Joseph Schaefer<mailto:joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID>; > dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org> > Cc: Joseph Schaefer<mailto:joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID> > Subject: RE: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache > Projects?) > > > Yes its positive and I've supported it every step, including stating whatever > folks decide is best. I'm just saying that the kind of reporting you hope > for is unlikely to materialize. > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Joseph Schaefer<mailto:joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID> > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 12:03 PM > To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org> > Cc: Joseph Schaefer<mailto:joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID> > Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache > Projects?) > > > > So whittling down the access to this information from 600 odd members to a > handful of people isn't a positive step Ross? We can certainly debate the > necessity for an ombudsman alias but that has little to do with the benefits > of having a collaborative team of people to deal with this. > > Keep in mind Ross that your own expertise in this matter is limited to your > own direct experiences- we as an org have absolutely no insight into how well > you have done in this capacity. Again we should look at the facts like > retainment and satisfaction of the reporter- what we're doing isn't enough if > the person just winds up walking away from the asf post hoc. > > The org has not paid for your training in this matter, and your business > training from dealing with sexual harassment issues at work does not directly > translate because there are no employees here at the asf. Trust me, I've sat > through those same dull meetings myself- it's more about what not to do to > avoid a federal case being filed against the company. > > I too have some experiences dealing with other students being sexually > harassed by their professors, so I'm not particularly ignorant of the > surrounding issues as to why complaints are filed to whom and what sorts of > remedies are typically desired. In my capacity as graduate student > representative, despite having a very close relationship with the department > chair I never came across a reporter willing to authorize me to share their > report with the chair. They always wanted to keep it informal and low key- > at best I was asked to confront the professor in question that I was aware of > what was going on with an anonymous person. > > What I'm suggesting is that these volunteers discuss directly with the > reporters the options available, and that includes every level of escalation, > even to other ombudsman. This doesn't seem particularly difficult to grasp, > and allows a less experienced volunteer to usher in advice and support from > the rest of the team. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On May 29, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >> 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 >> > >
