Thank you to everyone who has responded and has given us feedback and advice!
Joe, thank you for your response, I agree with about 98% of what you posted. However, this email chain has gotten too long and confusing to follow. Thus, I’m going to “close” this email chain and start with a new, clean proposal, treating this email chain as background material. Since the proposal does not deal with any of the exceptions ASF cites, I will post it to the dev@ email list, so all community members can view and voice their opinions.[1] Once again, thank you for your honest feedback. I truly appreciate you taking the time to respond in such a respectful and comprehensive way. And thank you to all community members who took the time to read and/or respond to the proposal, Aaron Williams [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html#communication On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 12:27 PM Joe F <joefranc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The conversation here seems incoherent because of a few factors. One is > by the use of "community'' and "project" interchangeably, as required to > support this proposal - community in one context to support holding > meetups/conferences and at the same time asking the PMC to manage this > effort under the project. Adding to that confusion is that part of this > conversation is happening on the private list. > > There are things assumed in this proposal that are implied, and not > explicit. The issue is not about the PMC and the creation of a > sub-committee/working group/Umbrella group, ( however you name it ) but > with what it implies. > > Consider* "(with representatives from multiple vendors as well as > unaffiliated participants)". * That seems like corporations/vendors > getting rights/endorsements/blessings, via some governance/PMC/ blessed > roles, bypassing Apache meritocracy for individuals- in this case, by > means of "sub-committees/working/umbrella groups ". > > - It is very clear that ASF does not allow corporations to participate > directly in Apache project management. > - It is also clear that there is nothing limiting any vendor - other than > compliance to ASF policy - to market, sell software, organize conferences, > meetups etc > > So what is new here in this proposal ? Other than "vendor representation" > as a means to bypass the meritocratic constraint on the project, and > introduce vendor rights and privileges into the project? > > *>> "what we meant to say in the Marketing/Communications working group > proposal is that we wanted a diversity of members, rather than all > volunteers to be from the same company or dominated by one company."* > > The vast majority of Pulsar PMC and committers are not affiliated with any > vendor, and are just Pulsar users. > Vendor representation, by itself, is not a basis for anything in ASF > projects. Vendors are not directly represented in the project . It's > individuals. This seems like asserting vendor neutrality trumps merit, and > merit should be sacrificed for vendor neutrality. I see that as hard to > buy. Marketing smells of commercial activity, dragging the PMC into vendor > business activities > > > *>>Having an Umbrella Group also prevents or at least makes it tougher for > the “wild west” of meetup organizations to happen. For Apache Hadoop, both > Cloudera and Hortonworks sponsored competing meetups early on, which led to > tons of problems for that community around vendor neutrality.* > This seems a roundabout way of demanding that PMC should > mediate/endorse/coordinate among vendors, under the perceived cloud of > "else bad things will happen". > [As an aside, neither Cloudera nor Hortonworks had any rights by virtue > of just being a vendor, There were merited individuals in both camps]. . > > > *>>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",* > Enforcing compliance to ASF policy cannot be equated to prohibition of > anyone. There is nothing prohibiting vendors/users/groups to host their > own groups/meetups/events . ASF already has an event/branding policy that > lays out how this can be done, and it's neutral and allows anyone to host > events. > > Vendors/Users are also free to associate in whatever manner they choose, > and host events, subject to the same ASF policy. They don't need the PMC > to manage this under the Project flag to do so. Anyone can follow ASF > policy and have as many events as needed. The more of these events, the > better it is. > > This proposal implicitly demands that being a vendor, by itself, should > confer some privileges/rights or blessings by the project PMC (call it > membership in working group/subcommittee/Umbrella group .. ) and that the > PMC should get into the business of running/marketing vendor activities. > That seems to stand on its head the Apache policy of vendor neutrality. > It's essentially insisting that the PMC actively market all vendors, > instead of none. > > I think there is no reason for the PMC/project to take on the "Project > should manage vendors/vendor activities" role, or provide rights to > vendors. It is not the PMC's role to manage vendors, mediate between > vendors or to promote/market vendor interests. > > There is a well established, time-tested ASF policy on events and > branding, and there is no need to invent a new one. This proposal is a > solution in search of a problem. > > -j > > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:26 PM Aaron Williams <aa...@wi5s.com> wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I think that there is some confusion on a couple of terms. >> >> Vendor Neutrality- What we said caused a lot of confusion, what we meant >> to say in the Marketing/Communications working group proposal is that we >> wanted a diversity of members, rather than all volunteers to be from the >> same company or dominated by one company. Community members want to >> volunteer to promote the project and not a company or group of companies. >> If they feel that their hard work is used to promote the Community then >> they will be filled with a sense of pride and will want to do more. If >> they feel that it is going to one company then they will get a bad taste >> in >> their mouth. >> >> Sub-committee- It seems that the name sub-committee is causing some >> issues. Why don’t we call it a “working group”? We are clear that this >> working group (like all working groups) would serve at the pleasure of the >> entity that created it, i.e., the Apache Pulsar PMC. >> >> Hopefully with those clarifications/corrections we can focus a little more >> on the two issues that have been combined in this email chain. >> >> Marketing/Communications Working Group- >> >> The PMC has the power to create working group(s). The goal of the working >> group (as has been proposed) would be to promote the community, offer >> suggestions and recommendations to the PMC on how best to communicate the >> workings of Apache Pulsar community to the broader streaming and Open >> Source communities. >> >> An Analogy: If the community proposed and the PMC approved a security >> working group, no one would think that the PMC was “essentially carving >> out >> the prerogatives of the PMC and the oversight that it’s responsible to >> exercise.” But actually the opposite would be true. It would show that >> security is so important that we created a group that focuses on it. >> >> So like all working groups, the Marketing/Communications Working Group >> would serve at the pleasure of the PMC, and the PMC can set the rules of >> the working group, change them, and disband it at any time. The PMC could >> choose its members or just ask for volunteers. >> >> So given that these seem to be the hurdles to the formation of the Working >> Group, I would like to ask the question, should the members be chosen or >> should it just be who would like to volunteer to help out? Either way the >> meetings or email list would be open to the public. >> >> Meetups and the Umbrella Group- >> >> We are all in agreement that meetups are good. The issue seems to be if >> the PMC should support them directly, allow the community to run them >> without oversight or interference, or stop them entirely? (There will be >> other things to discuss, but this is the Step 1 question) >> >> There are many reasons to create an Umbrella group. The easiest reason to >> understand is that it makes finding another group’s events much easier. >> And since just about everything is virtual right now, a community member >> would be able to see and attend other groups from around the world. >> Similarly, as the organizer of a local group, it makes it easier to avoid >> scheduling conflicts. >> >> If a community member wants to create their own group, this will give them >> lots of meetup groups to model and get ideas from. Finally, as the local >> meetups grow, “the dots on the map” becomes very impressive. This tells >> future community members that this is a vibrant community that will have a >> lasting impact on programming and you want to be part of this community. >> (BTW go to Hyperledger’s page to see an impressive number of dots on the >> map)[1] >> >> Having an Umbrella Group also prevents or at least makes it tougher for >> the >> “wild west” of meetup organizations to happen. For Apache Hadoop, both >> Cloudera and Hortonworks sponsored competing meetups early on, which led >> to >> tons of problems for that community around vendor neutrality. We can >> avoid >> this can of worms for Apache Pulsar by providing oversight and guidance >> from the beginning. >> >> Thus, given the above and that it is better for the organizers, better for >> the PMC’s responsibility to oversee vendor neutrality, and better for >> users >> and potential users to manage meetups with a little more structure, I >> would >> recommend that the PMC go forward with giving its blessing to the Umbrella >> model. >> >> Thanks, >> Aaron >> >> [1] https://www.meetup.com/pro/hyperledger >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.meetup.com_pro_hyperledger&d=DwMFaQ&c=adz96Xi0w1RHqtPMowiL2g&r=xfJCHpjPTxraruLs_Uk3E942RLPiuaa4M5tzdGOlGPw&m=2Apm-Dg7NvfjMr8oPyx-YNXcKu4CTlqL5BS_XRqBLoM&s=pa8I47NEuXWHaYithDQZp1HvoKzYI-7tYcTCt6MW12c&e=> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 8:03 AM Sree Vaddi <sree_at_ch...@yahoo.com >> .invalid> >> wrote: >> >> > This meetup was the oldest, started by founders of the Apache Pulsar.It >> > has 338 members. And recent event in May 2021. >> > >> > https://www.meetup.com/SF-Bay-Area-Apache-Pulsar-Meetup/ >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.meetup.com_SF-2DBay-2DArea-2DApache-2DPulsar-2DMeetup_&d=DwMFaQ&c=adz96Xi0w1RHqtPMowiL2g&r=xfJCHpjPTxraruLs_Uk3E942RLPiuaa4M5tzdGOlGPw&m=2Apm-Dg7NvfjMr8oPyx-YNXcKu4CTlqL5BS_XRqBLoM&s=ipEC8yaYRrw3_JmjBErZt-4wmX4v4rJLdG1NNnDcLRY&e=> >> > >> > >> > Thank you./Sree >> > >> > On Thursday, August 19, 2021, 05:35:43 AM PDT, Jonathan Ellis < >> > jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Moving back to dev. >> > >> > Since it seems like there's some confusion on this point, it's perfectly >> > normal for PMC discussions around new proposals with decision-making >> > authority by the PMC to take place on the public dev list. The private >> > list is only necessary when confidentiality is required, and the dev >> list >> > allows non-PMC voices to be heard more readily as well as promoting >> > transparency on how consensus was reached. >> > >> > I am not aware of any ASF policy that would prohibit subcommittees like >> > this. (I'm not aware of precedent in starting one either, but as Aaron >> > pointed out, this *is* common at similar foundations with similar >> > governance goals to the ASF, and there's no reason we can't >> cross-pollinate >> > good ideas.) >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:47 AM Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Moving dev@ to BCC. I believe the following two major issues should >> be >> > > discussed and addressed in the original email thread with PMC. >> > > >> > > 1) Creating sub-committees composed of vendor representatives isn't >> > > violating the ASF policy. This PMC has expressed concerns when the >> > original >> > > proposal was raised. Those concerns should be addressed first. >> > > >> > > 2) Mis-usage of "Apache Pulsar Community" without any PMC members >> > involved. >> > > >> > > Chris, >> > > >> > > I think everyone in the PMC appreciates the meetup organizers for >> > > organizing meetups and encourages people to create Pulsar meetups >> without >> > > any constraints. Coordinating and organizing meetups doesn't require a >> > > committee to do so. >> > > >> > > - Sijie >> > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:09 PM Chris Latimer <ch...@chrislatimer.com >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Hi Matteo, >> > > > >> > > > I'm sorry if my last message suggested that volunteering to take on >> an >> > > effort gives anyone the right to start acting on behalf of the PMC. >> That >> > > certainly wasn't my intent. The original message in this thread >> proposed >> > a >> > > way to help people who want to organize meetups do so more >> successfully. >> > I >> > > only meant to register my appreciation for the community members who >> are >> > > willing to volunteer their time and energy to help facilitate >> awareness >> > and >> > > excitement about the technology and express how personally >> disappointed I >> > > would be to see the PMC take a position that prohibits this kind of >> > > community development activity. >> > > > >> > > > Thank you for taking my perspective into consideration. >> > > > >> > > > Sincerely, >> > > > >> > > > Chris Latimer >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:08 PM Matteo Merli <mme...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> > 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. >> > > >> >> > > >> That was *absolutely not* what was answered. >> > > >> >> > > >> I re-quote my answer from before: >> > > >> >> > > >> ====== >> > > >> * 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 >> > > >> ====== >> > > >> >> > > >> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people >> > > >> > volunteering to take on the effort. >> > > >> >> > > >> Volunteering to take on the effort doesn't give the right to start >> > > >> acting on behalf of the PMC. >> > > >> > >> >>
