On 12/6/19 12:19 PM, Austin Bennett wrote:
The bits on mentorship make some sense, although I am confused. If about who is allowed/endorsed to speak on behalf of the ASF, then: * Should only speakers at events be of a condoned status (how are they vetted)?
No, I think that's overkill. Having someone involved in the running of the event, selecting content, makes it less likely that you'd run content that's "off message" but of course doesn't eliminate it. But it means that someone is involved who can stand up and say "that's not how it is"
or: * Would a required minimum number of mentors (PMC/Foundation members) be required in attendance, to be able to correct mis-messages?
Yeah, I think that's where we'd want it.
or more extreme: * Should every piece of content be recorded and reviewed, and if insufficient then the group should be discredited (that is extreme and unlikely, but I think you see the example).
While we'd *like* to have all content recorded, I don't think that's going to be a requirement.
^ The first two perhaps are things that should then also be included in the report of an event. Otherwise, it seems without the above invites much more bureaucracy without actually doing much to solve/prevent the problem that seems to concern people?
Right. Like I said early on, I don't want to do things that will kill this amazing new surge of desire to do local events/groups/gatherings. Just to be sure that they are supervised by someone who knows when it's gone off the rails.
-- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com http://rcbowen.com/ @rbowen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
