Hi everyone, long time reader, first time poster. :-) Here are my two cents: I would like to see the PMC encourage anyone and everyone who is willing to volunteer their time and effort to do things that will help the community grow (as long as it adheres to Apache policies of course). There are a lot of failed MeetUps that never get off the ground because organizing them, finding a space for them, finding speakers and building awareness is not easy! Anyone who has tried to organize a new user group or meetup can attest to this. I am super happy to see a willingness from community members to put their effort into helping other community members who want to take on the role of organizer. It helps improve the chances of success for MeetUps and that is a good thing for the community in my view.
I think it's entirely understandable for the PMC to say "we don't want to be responsible for this", but it would be highly unfortunate for the PMC to say "we don't want to be responsible for this AND no one from the community is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people volunteering to take on the effort. Chris Latimer On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 5:22 PM Matteo Merli <mme...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 3:15 PM Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Matteo, > > > > You will remember that I brought up the subcommittee idea in private > > yesterday, and followed up today [before the email you sent and quoted > > here] with an intention to start this public thread. > > There have been several concerns expressed by the PMC about the > proposal of sub-committees composed of vendor representatives. I don't > think any of the concerns were addressed so far. > > To reiterate my opinion on this matter: > > 1. Contribution to the ASF is always as an individual, not as a company. > 2. One person == One vote. It's not because a person is a > representative of a company that his/her opinion should have more > weight. > 3. ASF is based on meritocracy. People are invited on as > committers/PMC members based on their contributions to the project, > not for belonging to a particular organization. > 4. Creating sub-committees would essentially carve out the > prerogatives of the PMC and the oversight that it's responsible to > exercise. > 5. Ultimately, the decision here belongs to the Pulsar PMC and it has > to fit within the rules and spirit of the ASF. > > > Meanwhile, Aaron has not been hiding the groundwork he is laying for > > meetups, including collaborating with your colleagues Tim Spann and > Dianjin > > Wang at StreamNative. > > What I contested was not the "hiding" part. The problem with this > effort is that it was conducted completely outside of the PMC, while > at the same time trying to portray it as an official effort of the > PMC. > > To recap: > * Everyone is allowed (and encouraged!) to create and promote events > around Apache Pulsar (following the ASF guidelines on trademarks) > * Using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the organizer is a > mischaracterization, since that effort is not coming from the Pulsar > PMC > * These events should be renamed to something that makes it > absolutely clear this is not from Pulsar PMC > > The eventuality of the PMC getting directly involved in organizing > these events is something on which the Pulsar PMC would have to weigh > in, although I don't see a lot of support for the idea so far. > > > But this is where it would be nice to have a Marketing /Communication > > committee. We had them for the projects at my last position when I was > at > > a different foundation > > Aaron: the way organizations interact in other foundations (like CNCF, > as one example) is very different from Apache. That's not to say one > is "good" and the other is "bad", just that it is different and each > approach has its pros and cons. > > Matteo > > -- > Matteo Merli > <mme...@apache.org> >
