I bow to Naomi for keeping reacting in this thread and not giving in to a desire to step out of the discussion...
I find it sad that there are (board) members who keep saying that the situation must improve (because there are problems regarding Diversity and Inclusion), but when it comes to where it needs to improve (in the projects mostly) they also keep saying (here and other threads also in other fora in the past) that there is nothing to be done from the Foundation downwards to the projects because 'the projects are independent'. In my book there is where the view-points of those persons go of in wrong directions. Yes, projects are expected to operate independently from outside influence. But they can not operate independently from the organisation they reside under. In a page (See [1]) of the ASF it is stated that 'the board delegates the technical direction of all projects to each PMC', but 'are expected to follow corporate policies'. This means that the policies can be created at Foundation level, and can be policed (by the Board, and/or through delegation by a specific office). If the highest body of the Foundation established a strict(er) policy on 'merit awarding' and/or 'Diversity & Inclusion' then it is obliged, with regards to these policies, to: 1. ensure that each of the lower level organisational units (OUs like projects/offices/departments, etc.) acknowledge and apply such policies 2. regularly (and independently of the projects and offices) assess the adherence to (or compliance with) the policies 3. actively implement corrective measures when an OU fails to adhere to or comply with such policy. Mark suggested in a posting earlier that there is something called the D&I team that could be tasked with gathering advice from domain experts, and advise the President/Board on how to improve this situation. But it seems (I have done some searching on ASF pages regarding this D&I team) the team has not been established formally and thus no insights on its mission and production can be established. Maybe that still needs to happen? Or is it flying very low under the radar, or.... ? Whatever it may be (visages the D&I team), here are some suggestions that may lead to an improved situation: 1. Communicate (e.g. via the ASF's web site) clearly where contributors, who feel they were wronged, can submit complaints; 2. Treat complaints (and their submitters) seriously and discretely; 3. Have a protocol published so that everybody can learn about what to expect and when to expect it. [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/ [2] http://community.apache.org/projectIndependence Best regards, Pierre Smits *Apache Trafodion <https://trafodion.apache.org>, Vice President* *Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC Member* Apache Incubator <https://incubator.apache.org>, committer *Apache OFBiz <https://ofbiz.apache.org>, contributor (without having privileges) since 2008* Apache Steve <https://steve.apache.org>, committer On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 3:53 PM Naomi Slater <n...@tumbolia.org> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 15:51, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > > > > > I fail to see how this would affect the actual work that needs to get > > done. I have long since stopped caring about *persuading* our skeptic > > members about the need to do this work. They're not going to help > > anyways, why bother? And we already have the full support of the > > President and the Board on this, so they can't interfere in any > > meaningful way. > > > > fair point :) > > > > *That* is why I think that this nitpicking is irrelevant. If other folks > > wish to discuss whether it's 2% or 3%, sure, go ahead. It feels like > > debating the brand of mop we should be using when we're 8 feet under > water. > > > > lmao! >
