Hi Ross, Forgive me if this opens up the subject more than needed, but I have a question.
How do you view this new Diversity & Inclusion committee with respect to the code of conduct and https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct#reporting-guidelines where a list of contacts are provided. Is the new D&I committee meant to be separate from reporting/“enforcement” or not? Your arguments around legal situations involving law enforcement potentially implies a mixing of policy evaluation and enforcement. Regards, Dave > On May 1, 2019, at 7:31 AM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@outlook.com> wrote: > > Good points so far. One that I believe has been missed... > > Board committees have 9 bosses. PMCs have potentially many more. Presidents > committees have 1. > > In other words, a Presidents committee can get things done more quickly in > difficult or controversial spaces, especially in things that do not present a > binary correct/incorrect set of choices. > > As noted by others there is significant oversight from the board via monthly > reports. Plenty of opportunity for course correction as result. Any objection > by any one of the nine is dealt with by President, allowing the committee to > get on with their work within the boundaries agreed with the president. > > This requires a level of trust in the President, and their delegates. > > Ross > > Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> > > ________________________________ > From: Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> > Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 6:23:34 AM > To: dev@community.apache.org > Subject: Re: Why should D&I be a president's committee? > > The most important question is: where do the people who are currently > most active doing the real work of the survey and organizing > informational materials on diversity@ want to do that work? Ensuring > they have a productive space and framework to work is the first thing to > solve. That said... > > Myrle Krantz wrote on 5/1/19 7:06 AM: > ...snip... >> * Make it a sub-committee of ComDev. > > This is nothing more than a page on community.a.o and the diversity@ > mailing list. We already effectively have that. The only difference > would be having a formal page on the website that lists who's there, > essentially copying what we've done in the mailing list. > > In terms of powers, none in particular. Membership changes by the PMC > voting in new PMC members (or allowing committers to participate, etc.) > Reports would be part of the quarterly ComDev report. > >> * Make it a president's committee. > > The proposal is to also name a VP of that committee as well. The VP is > an officer, and can perform duties for the ASF within the scope of > whatever charter the board originally creates the VP officer with. > > Historically, we've had the board create *new VP roles* with a title and > description, and appoint the first person to that role. For President's > committees and other VPs reporting to the President, we've had the > President thereafter simply make new appointments to existing roles > directly (always reported in board reports). > > President's committees can be changed by the President at any point, or > by the VP in charge if specifically authorized to do so. Also, since > President's committees are mostly about operations, we have examples of > officers like this having regular annual budgets and signing authority. > > They cannot release software (publicly). They could have a separate > website and mailing lists. President's committees report monthly. > >> * Make it it's own PMC. > > This requires a normal board resolution, and would act like any other > PMC, especially in terms of managing PMC or committer membership. We've > done straight-to-PMC before (i.e. not going through Incubation), it just > needs the scope description of the PMC and the list of VP and members. > > They could release software and all the usual PMC things, and they > report to the board quarterly. > > ---- > > Elsethread, Mark also mentioned a board committee. They have the powers > of the board. Changing board committees (normally) takes a board > resolution, meaning it takes more time to add/remove people. They > report monthly to the board. > > While President's committees have a broad scope of operations, often > looking across the whole ASF, they do not have direct power to generally > set policies across other projects. Board committees, on the other > hand, could directly enact and enforce policies across projects. > > ---- > > Personally, I'm +1 for a President's committee. Right now, we need a > place where people actively doing productive work can do so. > President's committees provide plenty of oversight and monthly > reporting. A lot of the work will be gathering data and creating solid > materials that projects or other officers can choose to use to help > improve our communities, or doing their own direct outreach at > conferences or the like. Those are all things well suited to a > President's committee with a named VP. > > > -- > > - Shane > Director & Member > The Apache Software Foundation > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
