This is my vote +1 On Tue, Sep 21, 2021, 12:21 PM Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. >> >
