On Tuesday, September 21, 2021, Awasum Yannick <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi All, > > How to become a committer or PMC member for Apache Fineract is here: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/Becoming+a+Committer > Thanks Awasum you are quite good as always putting up right information. > > You have to be nominated by a current PMC member for Apache Fineract on > the private Fineract List. You gain committership or PMC membership through > continuous positive contributions(technical and non technical contributions > are valid, docs, JIRA ticets, QA, Product management, PR contributions etc) > over a period of time. > I understand and I would say how can we make it more simpler and quantifiable that’s accessible to all! , specifically for Fineract we could make the committer role more broader , since this project deals with a lot of business and entities working together. We should come up with some new definitions added on top of Existing one ! > > You don't get PMC membership by making a statement here. > Some perhaps could by mere virtue of past work and as well as good intentions and progressive mindset. > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 8:33 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 >> >> >> 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. >> > -- 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.
