Thanks, Rich. I think we have been headed in this direction for some time now and something like this is needed. Many thanks for coming up with a concrete proposal.
I have one suggestion for improvement, which is in part a problem statement. Instead of just subscribing to the private@ list, I would suggest that Sharpeners also subscribe to and even engage primarily on the dev@ list. The problem statement part of this is that having influence "behind the curtain" of privacy runs counter to transparency, especially if that influence is on how the project is run. It's been a while since I have been on the board, but I remember often pointing to discussions on private lists that should be public. I don't think its a good idea to have general discussion about how things are done in a project on private lists and having the Sharpeners engage exclusively there might encourage more of that. I think its a best practice to post draft board reports to dev lists and relay board feedback there. I know a lot of projects do that. That way, the community understands the thought process and can lead whatever change is needed, rather than being surprised by it. When I look back on successful "sharpenings" in the past, the real work generally happened on the project lists, with only very sensitive or individual people-related things being worked out on private lists. It might be a good idea to look at some historical examples and tease out a little more what exactly "sharpening" is going to be. If it is primarily (re-)education or community transformation, that really does need to be public and community-based. If its more admin / legal / policy compliance, that fits with the private engagement of the PMC model. Phil On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:55 AM Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > Ok, this one probably requires a LOT of discussion, but it’s something > I’ve been thinking about for more than a year, so if some of this seems > like I’ve already wordsmithed it, that’s why. > > Projects go through the Incubator, learn how to Apache, and then they move > on. The membership changes. The mission changes. The world changes around > them. And the lessons of the Incubator are often forgotten, or deemed > unimportant to the changed circumstances. > > This Working Group provides a mechanism for ASF Members to assist the > board in advising projects. (See the FAQ, “Why a member?” before objecting > to this. I am very firm on this point, and I believe that the board will be > too, if asked. > > I want to STRENUOUSLY encourage you to read the entire proposal before > responding, because I have foreseen a number of objections to this, most of > which go under the heading of “who are YOU to tell US what to do?!” I am > very cognizant of this. ComDev is a PEER to other projects, not in a > position of authority. That said, every member is responsible, to a certain > degree, for the direction the entire Foundation takes. > > I believe that this effort, if successful, could be hugely influential in > the trajectory of the ASF in the coming years. I believe that this is, at > heart, the primary mission of ComDev. I feel very strongly about the > importance of this working group. I will be glad to hold forth at greater > length over beer and/or scotch, at the next event facilitated by wg-social. > ;-) > > Anyways, please read > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/comdev/community/wg-sharpeners/README.md > and then think a little bit and then let me know what you think. > > Proposal also included below for convenience. > > > > # Sharpeners Work Group (Proposed) > > To provide "Sharpeners" - volunteers who come alongside a PMC to offer > an outsider's perspective on the project, and advice to build their > community. > > ## Who > > A Sharpener must be an ASF member. They are preferably a member who has > been around a while, and has some reason to be trusted as a mentor. You > must not already be a member of the PMC. You must not have any > adversarial reason to take on the role - a bone to pick, a corporate > entanglement, or whatever. > > ## What > > A Sharpener will subscribe to the project's PMC list > (priv...@project.apache.org) and mostly listen. They will comment > constructively when they see something that may be improved. They will > report concerns back to the board, via <private> sections in the ComDev > report, under a new "Workgroups" section that will be created for this > purpose. > > ## Values > > Interactions by Sharpeners are at the pleasure of the PMC. You do not > have any authority over the PMC. > > ### Declinable > > The PMC must be allowed to say "no thank you" without providing any > reason, and you must respect that decision, and not offer again unless > invited. > > ### Transparent > > When you subscribe to the private@ list, you MUST introduce yourself and > state your purpose, complete with a link to THIS document. You MUST tell > the PMC when you intend to report something back to either ComDev or the > Board. > > We will also track, here, in this repository, which Sharpener is > observing which project. > > ### Non-adversarial > > All feedback must be a polite, positive, actionable suggestion, not > merely a criticism or a "you're doing it wrong." You must suggest what > the PMC should do, providing links to policy or best practice documents > where applicable. Simply criticising is not welcome. > > If you cannot operate in this fashion, then this role isn't for you. > > ### Confidential > > (No, this isn't a contradiction to Transparent. Different audiences.) > > All communications on private@ mailing lists are confidential. Sharing > information you learned on those lists to anyone outside of the > membership of the ASF is a severe breach of trust. > > Do not ever cross-post between private lists with disjoint audiences. In > general, this means don't forward content from a private list to anyone > who is not an ASF member. > > All reports on Sharpener activity must be in <private> sections, unless > you have coordinated with the PMC to include it in *their* report. > > ### Collegial > > You are a colleague - a peer. You are not in a position of authority. > You cannot tell the PMC what to do. You are only an observer, and, at > the indulgence of the PMC, advisor. Do not abuse this relationship. > > ## FAQ > > ### Why "Sharpener" > > Because I wanted an "sh" word, to go along with Shepherds and Shadows, > which I'll be writing about elsewhere. > > "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another." > > ### Why a member? > > A Sharpener must be an ASF member. This is because doing this job > requires access to a projects private@ PMC mailing list. All ASF members > already have this access. > > Furthermore, an ASF member has already earned trust in the context of > the ASF. Trust is transitive - that is, you may not know all members > personally, but each member was nominated and elected by people that > you, in turn, nominated and elected. > > > > > > — > Rich Bowen > rbo...@rcbowen.com > > > > >
