Thanks a bunch Mark! Daniel can you please set Ross up with a .qmail-rgardler-owner file containing his full apache.org address? For your convenience there's a custom script in ~apmail/bin on Hermes for this task.
Sent from my iPhone > On May 30, 2016, at 2:55 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On 30/05/2016 18:30, Ross Gardler wrote: >> Yes. Thanks to everyone working this out. > > Done. Thanks Marvin. > > The next step is to expand the list of contacts. The call for volunteers > was made on the private members@ mailing list so, in keeping with the > ASF policy of not copying information from a private list to a public > one, I won't list those volunteers here. What I will do is pass the list > to Ross for him to review. Once reviewed, I'll check with each of the > volunteers to make sure they are happy being listed as a PoC and, if > they are, get them added. > > It was suggested that each listed volunteer should include a link to a > picture and a brief bio. Any concerns or objections? If not, can I > suggest that the volunteers create > https://home.apache.org/~availid/coc.html and we link to that? > > Mark > >> 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 >
