Either way it is wrong to threaten my posting ability for relaying a valid complaint.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019, 15:00 Rich Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 7/8/19 3:08 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > I will be negative 1 and say that planners, also not a traditional pmc, > > just had a complaint last month for this exact type of issue. Made by > > Sally Khudairi. > > > FWIW, at the time I interpreted that more as a "would have been nice to > know" than a "YOU MUST". > > Notifying folks that there's going to be a meeting is probably a good > thing. Making it an open invitation for all committee members is not, > since it decreases the signal-to-noise in the meeting, and often leaves > the outside party confused as to which voice was authoritative. > > Internal-only meetings - sure, invite the whole family. External > meetings, where we are representing ourselves to a third party, need to > have a clear leader. > > All IMHO, of course, but leaning heavily on a long history of Doing It > Wrong in ConCom. > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019, 14:05 Ross Gardler <[email protected] > .invalid> > > wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> --- > >> > >> Sent from my phone, likely while waking down the stars and having a > >> conversation. Sorry about my carelessness, I blame the machines. > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Griselda Cuevas <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 8:00:46 PM > >> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: Need to Invite Committee Members to meetings was Re: Recap > >> from call w/ Outreachy's team > >> > >> Thanks Myrle, and thank you Kevin for your intention to guide me. > >> > >> Even when I might be relatively new to the ASF (been here for 2 years), > I > >> want to clarify that this wasn't a "newbie mistake", I understand > >> transparency is key in the Apache Way. I intentionally didn't invite the > >> entire committee because this was a meeting I needed in order to make an > >> informed decision on how to move forward once we sorted other matters. > >> > >> The Apache Way encourages transparency and I honored that by bringing > back > >> to the list the result of a meeting I called, I didn't make a decision > nor > >> hide the outcome. > >> > >> I anticipate that I will continue to have more meetings where I won't be > >> able to invite the entire committee and I'd appreciate not to continue > >> being corrected for that. I'm saying this not because I'm too proud or > >> don't want to live by the Apache Way, I'm saying this because I want to > get > >> the freedom to work on my own style and also set the stage for other in > >> this committee to do it. > >> > >> One more point I'd like to make is that, there is no need for the entire > >> committee to be in every single discussion or project. There are so many > >> initiatives, and we are short in hands. I'd love for us to be a team > where > >> we trust each other and we can delegate and lead. > >> > >> I hope you understand where I am coming from. > >> G > >> > >> On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 at 10:34, Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> A reminder Kevin, > >>> > >>> While it is important to work to achieve buy-in from the many > volunteers > >>> Gris will need to help with the work, D&I is *not* a traditional PMC. > >>> Think of it more like conferences. Precisely because such efforts > have, > >> in > >>> the past, been literally talked to death, the board chose a different > >>> structure for this D&I project: Gris both needs, *and* *has* the > right > >>> to operate as VP Diversity, as she has done here. > >>> > >>> What's more: she has already put in an *enormous* amount of effort to > >>> achieve buy-in from the volunteers here. So even though she has the > >> right > >>> to make executive decisions, she's clearly not making them without > >>> consultation. Gris is doing what I, as a board member, intended her to > >> be > >>> able to do when I voted for both the first and the second resolution on > >>> D&I. I have full faith in both her ability to continue doing it, and > in > >>> Sam's ability to call Gris to accounts if she slips out of the bounds > of > >>> that role. > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> Myrle > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:04 PM Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 7/8/2019 12:51 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > >>>>> "If it didn't happen on the list it didn't happen" does not mean > >>> nothing > >>>> can happen in this way, only that decisions are not made without time > >> for > >>>> community feedback and engagement. > >>>>> > >>>>> No problem in this case. Thank you for keeping things moving. > >>>> > >>>> Ross, > >>>> > >>>> The committee not being notified it was happening and not extending > the > >>>> invite to others on list is a no-no. > >>>> > >>>> For similar complaints, see Sally's complaint on June 2nd for the > >>>> Hackathon meetings with too little notice for the bridge information > on > >>>> planners@. Luckily Rich had emailed about it previously so this was > >>>> just the logistics details and more announcements were made since. > >>>> > >>>> We need to give Gris and others new to Apache correct guidance. > Using > >>>> synchronous comms especially meetings without everyone invited are > >>>> pitfalls for a lack of inclusion and definitely not in line with the > >>>> Apache Way. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> > >>>> KAM > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > -- > Rich Bowen - [email protected] > http://rcbowen.com/ > @rbowen >
