As a former PMC member I have exactly as much right to vote on this nomination as Sarensh has to make it (none ; o)
Nonetheless here is my nonbinding vote: -1 Best, Myrle On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:30 AM Saransh Sharma <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the appointment of track chair was never done publicly or asked > for from the community unless it was self appointed or appointed in > shadows! > > If I am not on the list and how can I vote the talks ! > > Silence is the consent but raising objection is needed if seen any time . > There is no limit to that in terms of a time frame as you are pressing here > . > > If Javier and Rich gets to decide certain rules and get it approved by > silence then we could definitely use lazy consent at any given time to redo > those decision. > > > As a volunteer , I would like to share that community need to work > together rather than a single benevolent dictator making rules on whims and > small timeframes and making excuses on the fact that what others will say > or it’s disrespectful for other volunteers or speakers if we change ! > > In my opinion , this Stone Age practice of deciding things a decade ago > need to be revisited. Better start now then year better. > > I would like to propose Saransh Sharma as PMC if no one has any problem > with that in next three days then we can conclude this . > > Please use +1 and -1 for your votes , note your silence will be used a > consent so please vote and let’s amend some nice changes in the community > > Thanks > > > On Monday, September 20, 2021, Rich Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 2021/09/19 07:35:33, Muellners ApS <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Community for some time, we have debated whether it is right for Track >> > Chairs to self approve their own proposals in a public conf. - Apache >> Con, >> > organised by charitable donations. >> > >> > For whatever reasons, a single self appointed track chair should not >> > approve his own proposals, as this sets up a very dangerous precedent in >> > this community. >> > >> > I strongly object & condemn this type of deterioration of human values >> in >> > our society and this community. >> > >> > Alternate route is to continue the track by dropping the talks which the >> > Track Chair has decided that he/she/they will present themselves. >> > This also gives space for newer budding ideas to come forward. >> >> You were invited, on this list, to participate in the process. You >> declined to do so. That thread is here: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r54be0953f95399fbd28d124c6643a568e70fc9c631bf61b10e78833b%40%3Cdev.fineract.apache.org%3E >> >> You were also invited to help rate and select the talks, via the CFP >> system. You declined that invitation also. >> >> You also declined to object when Javier was the track chair for this >> track last year, and the year before that. >> >> As for whether track chairs can run their own talks - that was my >> decision, not Javier's. And I made that decision more than a decade ago, >> and have been consistent with it every year since then. Track chairs are, >> by definition, subject matter experts, and excluding them from being >> speakers would be self-defeating. So we don't do that. Nobody has objected >> to it, because the track chair was, in every case, approved by the project >> community. You, specifically, approved Javier as your track chair by your >> silence, and by not volunteering for that committee. >> >> For whatever it's worth, Saransh, the rating of talks for this event >> *was* run by an anoymized voting platform (ie, speakers name was not on the >> abstract). And everyone who asked to be part of that review process was >> granted access to do so. I note that your name is not on that list. >> >> This entire conversation is profoundly disrespectful to the HUNDREDS of >> volunteer hours that went into putting this event together. And having this >> conversation on this list, 2 days before the event is to start, would be >> laughable if it wasn't so incredibly inappropriate. >> >> This entire dispute is about a requested change to the schedule that >> happened less than a week before the conference starts. *I* am the one who >> vetoed that change, not Javier. And I did so because events have deadlines, >> and the request was long after an already-extended deadline. >> >> Join the [email protected] list and be part of the solution next >> year. Discussing *here* and *now* how ApacheCon should be run is neither >> effective nor appropriate. >> >> > > -- > Saransh Sharma > Research Partner > > Sent from my phone > This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy. > The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents > may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from > disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if > this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert > the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any > attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents > of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly > prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be > monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure > compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails > are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be > intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed > to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail. >
