Hey guys, I was just about to formalize the publications processes we have recently talked about.
When going through the checklist I came across this point again: [] Does the content clearly come from an individual who's actively involved in Apache OpenWhisk? As opposed to coming from a vendor or organization. Does content really need to come from an individual actively involved in Apache OpenWhisk? What if someone who has, so far, not been actively involved but has something to say that is obviously of high interest; what if someone shows an interesting OpenWhisk use-case/scenario, architecture, or how he/she is using OpenWhisk in production... Hence, I would like to "ease" this requirement by saying something like: [] Is the content clearly of general interest with the aim to promote Apache OpenWhisk by demonstrating its strengths & value (by talking about use-cases, architectures, patterns, in-production usage, ...) in contrast to do advertisment for anything being commercial? I also would say that it is fine if a vendor is asking to publish something as long as it also promotes Apache OpenWhisk and as long as it isn't something that must be considered advertisement for the vendor's commercial platform. In addition each vendor must follow been the same rights and duties... Otherwise we will end-up in multiple medium, twitter, youtube, etc. channels for OpenWhisk, one (for each channel) for Apache OpenWhisk and one (for each channel) for each vendor... way too many sources of truth that would lower our power of impact... Agreed? Thanks. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards Dr. Andreas Nauerz Technical Product Manager | Master Inventor | Member TEC Central Region IBM Cloud, Bluemix Phone: +49-7034-643-2954 IBM Deutschland E-Mail: [email protected] Schoenaicher Str. 220 71032 Boeblingen Germany IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH / Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Köderitz Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294 From: Andreas Nauerz/Germany/IBM To: [email protected] Date: 14/06/2017 23:08 Subject: Re: How to continue to use our social media channels Thanks, Matt. a) #2: I agree, that one was/is redundant - even if we add a submission form later it would be send to the private list. Will remove it. #3: Fine with me; good to have at least someone feeling responsible once I am out ;) #4: For medium articles that may be fine, but tweets are usually time-critical and lose their value if you hold them back; that is why I would agree for everything except tweets where I would auto-approve if I or my backup is fine (can be deleted again worst case). #5 will be added in addition to what Bertrand already suggested prior. c)-e) Perfect. sth=something ;) f) What do we do with this one now? I am going to document this process (wiki) next week when I am back from traveling. Thanks. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards Dr. Andreas Nauerz Technical Product Manager | Master Inventor | Member TEC Central Region IBM Cloud, Bluemix Phone: +49-7034-643-2954 IBM Deutschland E-Mail: [email protected] Schoenaicher Str. 220 71032 Boeblingen Germany IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH / Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Köderitz Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294 From: "Matt Rutkowski" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 14/06/2017 16:33 Subject: Re: How to continue to use our social media channels Hi Andreas, > a) Is the process outlined above okay for all of you?> The process sounds well thought out. thoughts/comments below... #2 seems redundant since the request will go to the "private" list (which includes all PPMC members); were you thinking special attention was needed beyond this? Perhaps this means one of the PPMC members acknowledges and speaks in for/against, calls for discussion (and perhaps a vote later if needed). #3 I would be happy to be a designated "backup", but all PPMC should effectively be tertiary backups ) #4 I think that if the checklist is satisfied by one of the reviewers for a submission, they could send an email to "private" (i.e., PPMC) indicated "looks good, going to approve/post in X (24) hours if no one objects and we need to further discuss and (if not resolved) call a vote? add of course #5 If PPMC cannot agree, seek advice from the Apache Incubator PMC (and perhaps Apache legal/trademark where we would likely be sent if it comes to this). > c) Who wants to help with implementing the submission form?> I can try to help; would be fun to see the insides of the website repo. having built and deployed it locally only to update some esoteric layouts/css. > d) Who wants to act as a backup while I am out?> o/ (raises hand) > e) Is the idea of using our private mailing list as temp solution fine > It is what happens anyway now (without a FORM and its structured fields). So fine by me... in fact, we would need to consider the FORM supporting attachments or have the submitter supply a link to some doc store. > (can anyone send sth to this?)?> was afraid to ask, but what is "sth" ( Stash file type?)? > f) What do we want to use to share credentials? SVN, Lastpass, sth else?> I think that is for the PPMC to discuss? - Matt
