https://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#hats
INDIVIDUALS COMPOSE THE ASF All of the ASF including the board, the other officers, the committers, and the members, are participating as individuals. That is one strength of the ASF, affiliations do not cloud the personal contributions. Unless they specifically state otherwise, whatever they post on any mailing list is done as themselves. It is the individual point-of-view, wearing their personal hat and not as a mouthpiece for whatever company happens to be signing their paychecks right now, and not even as a director of the ASF. All of those ASF people implicitly have multiple hats, especially the Board, the other officers, and the PMC chairs. They sometimes need to talk about a matter of policy, so to avoid appearing to be expressing a personal opinion, they will state that they are talking in their special capacity. However, most of the time this is not necessary, personal opinions work well. Some people declare their hats by using a special footer to their email, others enclose their statements in special quotation marks, others use their apache.org email address when otherwise they would use their personal one. This latter method is not reliable, as many people use their apache.org address all of the time. -- Robert Samuel Newson rnew...@apache.org On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, at 18:47, Joan Touzet wrote: > Garren, > > RFCs are intended for major changes to our projects, not for minor > improvments. > > Do you foresee massive changes to nano and fauxton? > > Do you not see that a single employer driving ~all the development > of either or both of these as a significant concern re: the health > of our community? > > -Joan > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Garren Smith" <gar...@apache.org> > > To: "priv...@couchdb.apache.org Private" <priv...@couchdb.apache.org>, > > "Joan Touzet" <woh...@apache.org> > > Cc: "CouchDB Developers" <dev@couchdb.apache.org> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 2:56:04 AM > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed Bylaws changes > > > > I'm also not super keen on the "not directly affiliated with the > > proposer's > > employer”. I think this will put unnecessary strain on the community. > > Take > > the Fauxton and Nano.js project. The majority of work on those > > projects > > come from IBM affiliated developers. We do have a smaller group of > > community developers. That small group of community developers would > > have > > to review all RFC's and approve them and ideally not hold up > > development on > > a feature for a few weeks while they try and find time to get to it. > > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:49 AM Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Thanks. I'll make another attempt to sway others, and I'd like to > > > hear > > > from more people on this thread. > > > > > > I don't see the harm in this, it would rarely if ever be invoked, > > > and > > > it allows us to point to a concrete, solid action we have taken to > > > ensure we don't have a runaway project in the future. I would think > > > it could be a guiding light for other ASF projects that have lost > > > their > > > way (where we, I continue to assert, have not). > > > > > > Remember that votes on RFCs are the *committer* community, not the > > > PMC. > > > I'd be shocked if the PMC remained entirely silent on a proposal, > > > but > > > it indeed could be possible that committers could get an RFC > > > together > > > "while the PMC isn't looking" (say, over a holiday). Granted it'd > > > be in > > > bad form, and the PMC could still take steps to correct things > > > after > > > the action, but it'd be annoying to deal with. > > > > > > Again all I am trying to do here is put in a limiter in case the > > > PMC > > > and committer base /were/ to get stacked against the community. If > > > that > > > were to occur, your argument that the PMC could step in at that > > > point > > > is moot, because the PMC would already be stacked in that > > > direction. > > > This would protect the community from the negative effects of that > > > happening. > > > > > > -Joan > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Robert Samuel Newson" <rnew...@apache.org> > > > > To: "Joan Touzet" <woh...@apache.org> > > > > Cc: "CouchDB Developers" <dev@couchdb.apache.org>, "CouchDB PMC" > > > > < > > > priv...@couchdb.apache.org> > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 4:46:35 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed Bylaws changes > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > > > Any member of the PMC who is railroading changes through on > > > > behalf of > > > > their employer to the detriment of this project should be > > > > disciplined, ultimately losing their PMC membership (and their > > > > binding vote on future changes). > > > > > > > > The "not directly affiliated with proposer's employer” seems to > > > > presume bad faith on the part of some of those with binding votes > > > > at > > > > worst, and, at best, is stating that the PMC already distrusts > > > > its > > > > members that happen to be employed by IBM. If that is currently > > > > the > > > > case, the PMC should act directly and censure those members who > > > > have > > > > acted contrary to the requirements of an ASF PMC member. > > > > > > > > I don’t see how this piece is coupled with RFC, especially when > > > > writing RFC’s, and taking them through a community review > > > > process, > > > > is likely to mitigate the issue of significant work being > > > > designed > > > > in private but ultimately contributed to CouchDB publicly. > > > > > > > > If the “RFC before code” approach does not work out, I will add > > > > my > > > > support to the affiliation requirement, but with a heavy heart. > > > > To > > > > presume such bad faith within the PMC, or to suspect it so > > > > strongly > > > > as to embed pre-emptive measures into our bylaws, points at > > > > issues > > > > deeper than a bylaw change can reasonably address. Other, > > > > stronger > > > > responses would seem more appropriate should that come to pass. > > > > > > > > B. > > > > > > > > > On 14 Feb 2019, at 21:31, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > > > > > > > Care to give any more detail on your -1? > > > > > > > > > > I gave a fairly extensive argument as to why I think such a > > > > > safeguard is important for our community. I also feel it would > > > > > be meaningless to push through an RFC without community > > > > > support. > > > > > But our current bylaws would make this very straightforward. > > > > > Why not put in this "backstop?" > > > > > > > > > > -Joan > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > >> From: "Robert Samuel Newson" <rnew...@apache.org> > > > > >> To: "CouchDB PMC" <priv...@couchdb.apache.org> > > > > >> Cc: "Joan Touzet" <woh...@apache.org>, "CouchDB Developers" > > > > >> <dev@couchdb.apache.org> > > > > >> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 4:26:31 PM > > > > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed Bylaws changes > > > > >> > > > > >> I am +1 on the RFC’s and -1 on the "not directly affiliated > > > > >> with > > > > >> the > > > > >> proposer's employer” item. > > > > >> > > > > >> B. > > > > >> > > > > >>> On 13 Feb 2019, at 11:13, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Sounds fantastic, thanks too for the additional context! I’d > > > > >>> love > > > > >>> for us to lead the way here (yet again). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Best > > > > >>> Jan > > > > >>> — > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> On 12. Feb 2019, at 20:15, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Hi everyone, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> There appears to be general consensus on the RFC process, > > > > >>>> with > > > > >>>> no > > > > >>>> objections to the proposal itself. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I'd like to propose the following changes to our bylaws: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > https://github.com/apache/couchdb-www/commit/8ae3a5a230b1717d7affe23625eeb288635aa542 > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Quick summary: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> * Added the RFC proposal process > > > > >>>> * The RFC will become an official template as part of this > > > > >>>> * https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/1914 adds Bob's > > > > >>>> request > > > > >>>> to include a Security section > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> * Proposed a new "qualified lazy majority" approval model > > > > >>>> for > > > > >>>> RFCs: > > > > >>>> * Requires 3 binding +1 votes > > > > >>>> * Requires more binding +1 votes than binding -1 votes > > > > >>>> * (NEW) Requires at least +1 binding vote from an > > > > >>>> individual > > > > >>>> not directly affiliated with the proposer's employer (if > > > > >>>> applicable) > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> * Changed URLs to use the new Pony Mail web interface (yay!) > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> While today we are in a great situation where no single > > > > >>>> entity > > > > >>>> dominates > > > > >>>> CouchDB development (to the exclusion of others), I believe > > > > >>>> this > > > > >>>> new > > > > >>>> approval model (just for RFCs) will prevent that from > > > > >>>> occurring > > > > >>>> in > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>> future, and will ease a long-standing concern I have held. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> If there is no strong objection, I will start the VOTE later > > > > >>>> this > > > > >>>> week. > > > > >>>> As this is both creating and amending our official > > > > >>>> documents, > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>> vote > > > > >>>> will be a lazy 2/3 majority vote, with binding votes only > > > > >>>> from > > > > >>>> PMC > > > > >>>> members. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Why is this so important to me? Recently, on another ASF > > > > >>>> mailing > > > > >>>> list, > > > > >>>> there was a discussion about some of the changes happening > > > > >>>> in > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>> commercial world, and as it relates to big companies giving > > > > >>>> back > > > > >>>> to open > > > > >>>> source. (You may have read about some competing database > > > > >>>> projects > > > > >>>> changing their license, for instance.) > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Allen Wittenauer graciously allowed me to excerpt his post, > > > > >>>> which > > > > >>>> is > > > > >>>> critical of the Apache Hadoop community, and share it here > > > > >>>> as a > > > > >>>> cautionary tale: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>>> This pretty much ignores the committer hoarding that > > > > >>>>>> is > > > > >>>>>> happening in a lot of ASF projects. It’s something > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > >>>>>> Jeff > > > > >>>>>> hinted at in a previous reply that I think people > > > > >>>>>> completely > > > > >>>>>> missed: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> The obvious reality is that the companies who build > > > > >>>>>>> service > > > > >>>>>>> around > > > > >>>>>>> "pay to call me when it breaks" are very, very often the > > > > >>>>>>> same > > > > >>>>>>> companies who hire all the committers, who fund all the > > > > >>>>>>> dev, > > > > >>>>>>> who end > > > > >>>>>>> up in danger when a cloud provider offers their product > > > > >>>>>>> as a > > > > >>>>>>> service. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Most of the Hadoop vendors tried to hire as many of > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>> committers as they possibly could and was even part > > > > >>>>>> of > > > > >>>>>> some > > > > >>>>>> PR campaigns (“We have more!” “Ours were first!”) > > > > >>>>>> This > > > > >>>>>> resulted in the community outside of those vendors > > > > >>>>>> being > > > > >>>>>> mostly ignored. This also built a feedback loop where > > > > >>>>>> PMC > > > > >>>>>> members promote their coworkers at a significantly > > > > >>>>>> higher > > > > >>>>>> rate than non-coworkers because the only > > > > >>>>>> contributions > > > > >>>>>> that > > > > >>>>>> were being looked at were the ones that helped their > > > > >>>>>> employers. (Anecdotally, coworkers: committer in 6 > > > > >>>>>> months, > > > > >>>>>> non-coworkers, ~1-2 years, if ever) As a result, the > > > > >>>>>> project > > > > >>>>>> is a shell of its former self since it was impossible > > > > >>>>>> for > > > > >>>>>> outsiders to make major, disruptive advancements in > > > > >>>>>> the > > > > >>>>>> project. Worse yet, Hadoop is now overwhelmingly > > > > >>>>>> controlled > > > > >>>>>> by one company since two of those vendors were forced > > > > >>>>>> to > > > > >>>>>> merge. > > > > >>>>> [snip] > > > > >>>>>> This is probably the key reason why a lot of > > > > >>>>>> companies > > > > >>>>>> participate in open source. Maybe if companies > > > > >>>>>> didn’t > > > > >>>>>> feel > > > > >>>>>> the need to hire every single person they could get > > > > >>>>>> their > > > > >>>>>> hands on to try and control the project, maybe the > > > > >>>>>> cloud > > > > >>>>>> providers would be more willing to donate man power. > > > > >>>>>> As > > > > >>>>>> it > > > > >>>>>> is, there is little point for anyone outside of a > > > > >>>>>> company > > > > >>>>>> whose mission is to be “the source” for their project > > > > >>>>>> (officially or unofficially) to contribute to > > > > >>>>>> non-diverse > > > > >>>>>> projects. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> From my informal chats with people at ApacheCon 2018 in > > > > >>>> Montreal, > > > > >>>> this > > > > >>>> is a hot-button topic. I'd like to get CouchDB out from > > > > >>>> under > > > > >>>> this > > > > >>>> cloud. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Again I am NOT ASSERTING that this is where we are today. I > > > > >>>> think > > > > >>>> our > > > > >>>> dev community works well together and is not controlled by a > > > > >>>> single > > > > >>>> entity. I just want to remove the possibility for this sort > > > > >>>> of > > > > >>>> abuse to > > > > >>>> occur, and I think that doing so thru the RFC process is the > > > > >>>> right > > > > >>>> step > > > > >>>> at this time. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> It is in everyone's best interest that RFCs happen, that we > > > > >>>> have > > > > >>>> consensus agreement on them, and that an open vote happens > > > > >>>> where > > > > >>>> it's > > > > >>>> clear that no single party is forcing through changes > > > > >>>> against > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>> will > > > > >>>> of other committed parties. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> -Joan > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -- > > > > >>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB: > > > > >>> https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/ > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
