Mark shared the names with me privately. I have no concerns about the people, but I do have a thought (this may have already been addressed, if so forgive me)...
If I understand correctly each of these people would be identified as a contact point. They would be an option for a complainant. My only concern is that there needs to be a single channel for official complaints. That should remain President (at least while the sitting President is willing to take on that responsibility). I do think that having a list of volunteers willing to address things in an unofficial capacity is a good idea. In my experience that vast majority of complaints are unofficial, having other avenues for these cases is a very good thing. The reason I believe we should keep a single channel for official complaints is to ensure consistency in the way we handle them. Furthermore, some of the volunteers are not officers and thus have less protection should things go wrong. Ross > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Thomas [mailto:ma...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 11:55 AM > To: dev@community.apache.org > Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on > Apache Projects?) > > 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https:%2f%2fhome.apach > e.org%2f~availid%2fcoc.html&data=01%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft. > com%7C1dace448ba26476c1e2808d388bbfc6b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d > 7cd011db47%7C1&sdata=kQlQ%2f%2fgGV0s9Ze0DJUZz2iTjKRo1r1CsMlsQ64 > TOW54%3d 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%2fzes > >>>> > t.apache.org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9759d51 > 5 > >>>> > c87f4d91e6ce08d387ea8d09%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1 > &sda > >>>> ta=2u6lzVmy3y9prPlnDUvhuaZGEFV%2fOEherBdEsDStByA%3d - New > Energy for Java > >>> > >> > >> > > > >
