*Javier, Try to understand that I have no interest in hitherto, assumptive dialogue. I would prefer cycling around then listening to the adjectives that you use here. You are a beautiful human being who in fact supported this project by bringing more people from your network in this year's Con. I remember talking to you in 2019, over the phone where I told you about my vision of how this community should increase open source commits and PRs.*
*4. Community discussions also hinted at increasing engagement & > representation of FIs who are consuming this project to ensure keeping the > software compliant with regulations, diverse use cases & more real feedback > if the project has to address needs of secto**rs other than micro > finance.* > No, they don't, if any, FIs or individuals who are interested in using FIneract will come and show themselves on the list or wherever they pleased. We can't make this platform compliant with every regulation on the planet, that has to be the last mile implementation effort which I believe is not the best use of the project's resources. *>>>Javier, Wrong. See, my friend, FIs are an important component of the Product engineering lifecycle of Fineract. This is the first time Apache is maintaining a financial technology project. We have to create outreach to bring these stakeholders' participation to this product lifecycle. * *Now as far as compliance with regulations and this project's bandwidth or resources are, there are ways to make a platform regulatory compliant. E.g global standards e.g IFRS, PCI, GDPR, California Protection Act, International VAT standards etc. Then the local participation also brings forward the local regulatory dynamics in the product's lifecycle. * * You are perhaps demonstrating lack of subject matter expertise. * *Are you stating that if a FI in Haiti and one in Germany wants to adopt this platform, then well ugh sorry we only designed the system for banks in one part of the world. A globally compliant fintech gets adopted faster by Investment Banks, Private Equities as they have huge bases in different regions of the world. I don't know your true level of expertise with regulations. I am not even sure if you are deflecting or simply demonstrating a lack of subject matter expertise here?* *Or what about FIs in different regions, who will adopt this platform and work with each other on remittances, because "we" can't make this platform compliant with every regulation.* ApacheCon Fineract/FinTech Track Activities > > - *The various presentations and panels were advertised on list, and > the schedule was posted in social media and on the fineract wiki. > **This line is non contextual. Let’s correct it to;* > - The link to schedule was first advertised on list *a week before* the > conf and the schedule was posted in social media and on the fineract wiki. > > I don't see any value, including that the schedule was advertised on the list a week before, the ApacheCon has its own advertising methods and was publicly announced in several places, including this list. Also, the speakers got notifications on the approval or rejection of their proposals way before the schedule was in place. *>>Please focus, I am citing an action of posting the schedule for a decision making exercise on this list. Let this go to the Board Report. There is immense value in that. If you don't want to add now, it is fine but explain more on this then please.* *And further let’s add;* > > *Denmark based non for profit Muellners Foundation’s Board observed a non > diverse & non inclusive schedule with 8/21 proposals from a single “for > profit” company, sponsoring the Apache Con. * > This statistic is misleading and inaccurate. This is a discussion that *several* sr. members of the Apache Foundation settled on the list, and yet it's coming and coming. *>>Let's agree that the discussion is settled for the sake of the community. however the key aspects from the discussion should nevertheless be reported on the Board Report as well. Why do you not wanna report it, if I may ask? What is your version of this discussion that you would like to add instead of this statement. Please share and go ahead. I am open.* > *On the list, the debate surrounding objection to the manner of organising > this year’s Apache Con resulted in highlighting the differences that the > project community has. Some of the core issues that came under the light > are:* > Again, this was settled by *several* contributions by Sr. members of the Apache Foundation, explaining how the ApacheCon is managed, and how talks are blindly selected in the platform. *>>>No my friend, the overall process should be exhibited transparently to this decentralised community of developers. Again the reality is that the discussion over differences took place, it should be mentioned in the report. * > *1. Truthful representation of Fineract CN’s state in these Board Reports, > project website, & improving documentation. Community has begun taking > these steps.* > This is not related to how ApacheCon was managed. *>>>YES and this point is not connected to Apache Con but is relevant for the Board Report of this quarter as many discussions took place on this, including findings in a survey that point to this statement. Why do you not wanna add this, if I may ask?* *2. Using blockchain based voting mechanism to run this decentralised > community of developers, in the form of another project say Apache DaO. > Muellners Foundation members proposed to incentivise the developers and > enable **community ownership in decision making, using the publicly > declared asset value of Apache Software Foundation. * > Good luck with this, Apache Foundation has its own set of rules, and this is not the place or the method for changing them. *>>Thanks for the luck Javier! This conversation took place on the list for the first time in this project's history and therefore should be recorded in the Board report. It's a different aspect whether the change happens here or not. That's in the hands of the community, not me and you. * *3. Long time contributor Saransh Sharma **explained that this project > should explore blockchain in its architectural roadmap. * > Then why did you decide that the talk about using smart contracts in Fineract CN wasn't appropriate for this community, as a Sr. member of Muellners Foundation sent asking for changing that talk? *"**We have decided to change the presentation subject and want to present the case studies (supported by Muellners Foundation on Apache Fineract). We feel that this is more fitting to the Fineract community than our current abstract submission."* *>>>**Dude, it is not your prerogative to ask me questions on why I decided to withdraw the whole Muellners Foundation from this Apache Con. Frankly, as a tech company CEO, you demonstrate lack of understanding of data privacy and consent. This conversation took place b/w a Board of a non for profit and a Track Chair(that was you as a volunteer here) and VP Conferences. * *Your only right as an Internet literate individual is to release information which you have spoken, or you can give the Muellners Foundation, a legal consent to release the whole set of communication, or you can take a consent from the Muellners Foundation. But anyway what to say to you on these issues. No, we have not signed an NDA, but that does not mean that I start releasing your private information. Please try to learn and respect this as you grow, it is important for the financial services industry that you are operating in too.( see Javier, don't take this otherwise, it is important for me to break this illusion now)* *Now that you have spoken on this, I did not wanna waste volunteer time beyond a point of philosophy. But you keep bringing it up thinking if this dialogue is only because of this difference. My friend, I was neither a speaker, nor a proposer of talk, neither the one whose proposal was rejected. I am a nobody. Why did you give me the authority to decide this in the first place? Maybe I care enough. * *You were given the opportunity to explain but you decided to only defend your actions. You were also given the opportunity to listen, but then again, you misnamed people, wrongly identified their gender, ridiculed their participation. You did that on a public forum as well. So, take it easy now. * *The above statement is not about Apache Con. Life does not end at Apache Con. It is indeed true that Saransh raised the blockchain in Fineract's architectural roadmap for the first time, so let's add this in the report too. Why do you not wanna add this statement, if I may ask? * During this quarter, unfortunately few Apache Code of Conduct violations > took place in the manner members communicated with each other. > This quote alone is dangerous, if there were violations please indicate them and escalate them. *Now, I have a request, Javier. please respond with data, facts, links, reports. I am sure you can produce information. What use is this dialogue if you and I keep throwing mud slings at each other.* *Greetings!* On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 12:37 PM Javier Borkenztain <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 8:57 PM, Muellners ApS <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hey Awasum, >> I would like to add a few things; >> >> ApacheCon Fineract/FinTech Track Activities >> >> - *The various presentations and panels were advertised on list, and >> the schedule was posted in social media and on the fineract wiki. >> **This line is non contextual. Let’s correct it to;* >> - The link to schedule was first advertised on list *a week before* >> the conf and the schedule was posted in social media and on the fineract >> wiki. >> >> I don't see any value including that the schedule was advertised on the > list a week before, the ApacheCon has its own advertising methods and was > publicly announced in several places, including this list. Also, the > speakers got notifications on the approval or rejection of their proposals > way before the schedule was in place. > > *And further let’s add;* >> >> *Denmark based non for profit Muellners Foundation’s Board observed a non >> diverse & non inclusive schedule with 8/21 proposals from a single “for >> profit” company, sponsoring the Apache Con. * >> > > This statistic is misleading and inaccurate. This is a discussion that > *several* sr. members of the Apache Foundation settled on the list, and yet > it's coming and coming. > > >> *On the list, the debate surrounding objection to the manner of >> organising this year’s Apache Con resulted in highlighting the differences >> that the project community has. Some of the core issues that came under the >> light are:* >> > > Again, this was settled by *several* contributions by Sr. members of the > Apache Foundation, explaining how the ApacheCon is managed, and how talks > are blindly selected in the platform. > > >> *1. Truthful representation of Fineract CN’s state in these Board >> Reports, project website, & improving documentation. Community has begun >> taking these steps.* >> > > This is not related to how ApacheCon was managed. > > *2. Using blockchain based voting mechanism to run this decentralised >> community of developers, in the form of another project say Apache DaO. >> Muellners Foundation members proposed to incentivise the developers and >> enable **community ownership in decision making, using the publicly >> declared asset value of Apache Software Foundation. * >> > > Good luck with this, Apache Foundation has its own set of rules, and this > is not the place or the method for changing them. > > *3. Long time contributor Saransh Sharma **explained that this project >> should explore blockchain in its architectural roadmap. * >> > > Then why did you decide that the talk about using smart contracts in > Fineract CN wasn't appropriate for this community, as a Sr. member of > Muellners Foundation sent asking for changing that talk? > > *"**We have decided to change the presentation subject and want to > present the case studies (supported by Muellners Foundation on Apache > Fineract). We feel that this is more fitting to the Fineract community than > our current abstract submission."* > > *4. Community discussions also hinted at increasing engagement & >> representation of FIs who are consuming this project to ensure keeping the >> software compliant with regulations, diverse use cases & more real feedback >> if the project has to address needs of secto**rs other than micro >> finance.* >> > > No, they don't, if any, FIs or individuals who are interested in using > FIneract will come and show themselves on the list or wherever they > pleased. We can't make this platform compliant with every regulation on the > planet, that has to be the last mile implementation effort which I believe > is not the best use of the project's resources. > > During this quarter, unfortunately few Apache Code of Conduct violations >> took place in the manner members communicated with each other. >> > > This quote alone is dangerous, if there were violations please indicate > them and escalate them. > > >> Thanks [image: 🙏] >> > > Your welcome! > > >> On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 23.25, Awasum Yannick <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Permission Granted to benuraab. >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 10:06 PM Benura Abeywardena <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> It's 'benuraab'. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 2:21 AM Awasum Yannick <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes. You can add changes to the doc but make sure you don't delete any >>>>> information. What is your Confluence ID so that I give you permission to >>>>> that document? >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 9:26 PM Benura Abeywardena <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Awasum, >>>>>> >>>>>> As a former GSOC intern, are we allowed to add contributions to the >>>>>> report? If so, shall I add contributions under the "Contributions" >>>>>> section? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks & Regards, >>>>>> Benura >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 1:43 AM Awasum Yannick <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am making final edits and additions to the board report. The >>>>>>> deadline is today but I am going to wait for a day and submit the >>>>>>> report tomorrow evening as the board meeting will take place in 7 >>>>>>> days time. The board will hopefully still have time to review them >>>>>>> before >>>>>>> the meeting proper. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 8:15 PM Awasum Yannick <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have started writing the Fineract Board report for October 2021. >>>>>>>> You are all invited to contribute here: >>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/2021-10+October+Report >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> GSoC Interns and Mentors, you can contribute by summarizing your >>>>>>>> projects. Ed, would you like to help again here? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Javier, James and others, would you like to write something about >>>>>>>> ApacheCon? I have been hearing important things. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Contributors, put in a few words about the wonderful work you do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We will combine all of these points and submit the report on >>>>>>>> Tuesday 12 October 2021. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> Awasum Yannick. >>>>>>>> PMC Chair, Apache Fineract. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >> Ankit >> Managing Partner >> Muellners Inc >> >> This mail is governed by Muellners[image: ®] 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. >> > > > -- Ankit Managing Partner Muellners ApS, Denmark Impressum- Muellners® Inc; Copenhagen, Denmark CVR: 41548304; New Delhi, India CIN: U72900DL2019PTC344870; Foundation EU CVR:41008407 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.
