Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

[ghamarjannah jannah]

ghamarjannah...@gmail.com
On May 23, 2016 5:47 PM, "Joe Schaefer" 
wrote:

> Personally I'd like to see the CoC addressed as well, particularly in
> regards to the use of president@ as a potential reporting channel for
> abuse.
> The CoC has been in place for a while now, and we have a rough guide from
> Ross to indicate that president@ as a reporting channel is underused
> compared with other avenues which are being used.  My personal problem with
> the president@ channel is that it is archived and so member-readable,
> which contradicts the actual claims made about the channel on the CoC.
> We have options for phasing out president@, from simply using one of
> Ross's personal addresses, to creating a dedicated alias of the
> ombuds(man)@ variety.  I prefer the latter, not to intermediate Ross who
> otherwise does an excellent job of handling issues,but to ensure a small
> team of volunteers is in the pipeline to provide some stability beyond
> Ross' tenure as president.  IOW there's no reason Ross couldn't be one of
> the ombuds(man)@ volunteers, should he wish to.
> Ideally the communication channel is described as fully confidential
> between the parties alone- no archiving or any other means of
> unintentionally increasing exposure of the issue beyond what the reporter
> is comfortable with.  Also it'd be good to provide profiles of each
> volunteer on a dedicated page, along with personal contact information as
> an alternate way of communicating an issue.
> Thoughts?
>
>
> On Sunday, May 22, 2016 5:49 PM, Daniel Gruno 
> wrote:
>
>
>  On 05/22/2016 11:35 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > Here's a really good suggestion from one of our other lists...
> >
> > "I wish we could hear from all the women who haven't come to Apache"
>
> (pardon the waffling below...)
>
> I am left wonderingcould we perhaps extend this a bit?
>
> We know there's definitely an issue of women being proportionately
> underrepresented in most FLOSS communities - what about other groups
> that may be in the same boat, but doesn't have the same visibility here?
>
> Would it make sense to broaden our search a bit and see if we can figure
> out if there are other areas that are just as bad (or maybe even worse
> off)?
>
> There is plenty of data surrounding how the world is made up of
> different groups of people, whether it be gender, color, orientations,
> faith, mental state etc, but none that I could immediately find on FLOSS
> communities - and I can't help wondering if there are other groups just
> as underrepresented out there (I could think of a few that might be, but
> I have no data whatsoever to support my claims!).
>
> I'm not saying we should start 100 different outreach programs or try to
> be the perfect fit for everyone from day one...but it sure would be
> interesting to see which groups we actually feel welcoming to, and which
> we miss by a mile.
>
> Does any such data on FLOSS communities in general already exist?
>
> I know this may irk some people slightly, trying to open up that big bag
> of profiles, but we won't really know if we are inadvertently hostile or
> unwelcoming to certain parts of the world's population until we start
> asking some questions.
>
> Maybe some sort of survey on the matter? I would naturally prefer a
> completely anonymous survey if we chose that route.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
> >
> > I'm not crediting because it came from an internal list, but I am
> repeating it as I agree with this excellent suggestion. If there are people
> in this group here please feel free to reach out onlist or, if you feel you
> want to say things better said privately, try Sharan who started the thread
> (or anyone else you feel comfortable mailing with your thoughts).
> >
> > Ross
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Ross Gardler
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 8:39 AM
> >> To: dev@community.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?
> >>
> >> We do not have current strategies. We've tried many things in the past
> but
> >> they've never really succeeded. I'll not speculate on why, it's a
> complex issue.
> >>
> >> What I will say (with my Presidents hat firmly on), is that if folks
> come up
> >> with a strategy that is in line with our charitable mission then please
> don't
> >> hesitate to ask for any support you need.
> >>
> >> Ross
> >>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Sharan Foga [mailto:sharan.f...@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 8:18 AM
> >>> To: dev@community.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?
> >>>
> >>> Hi All
> >>>
> >>> I'm interested in finding out how we could encourage more women to
> >>> participate on Apache projects. It's a discussion topic that came up
> >>> last week while I was at Apachecon. My understanding is that we don't
> >>> have any current strategies in place so I think it could be good 

RE: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

[Ross Gardler]

For the record I do have training in counselling. Its fairly lightweight and 
basically boils down to knowing how to respond and when to escalate to a 
specialist.

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Ross Gardler
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 3:06 PM
To: Joseph Schaefer; 
dev@community.apache.org
Cc: Joseph Schaefer
Subject: RE: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache 
Projects?)


Yes its positive and I've supported it every step, including stating whatever 
folks decide is best.  I'm just saying that the kind of reporting you hope for 
is unlikely to materialize.



Sent from my Windows 10 phone



From: Joseph Schaefer
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 12:03 PM
To: dev@community.apache.org
Cc: Joseph Schaefer
Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache 
Projects?)



So whittling down the access to this information from 600 odd members to a 
handful of people isn't a positive step Ross?  We can certainly debate the 
necessity for an ombudsman alias but that has little to do with the benefits of 
having a collaborative team of people to deal with this.

Keep in mind Ross that your own expertise in this matter is limited to your own 
direct experiences- we as an org have absolutely no insight into how well you 
have done in this capacity.  Again we should look at the facts like retainment 
and satisfaction of the reporter- what we're doing isn't enough if the person 
just winds up walking away from the asf post hoc.

The org has not paid for your training in this matter, and your business 
training from dealing with sexual harassment issues at work does not directly 
translate because there are no employees here at the asf.  Trust me, I've sat 
through those same dull meetings myself- it's more about what not to do to 
avoid a federal case being filed against the company.

I too have some experiences dealing with other students being sexually harassed 
by their professors, so I'm not particularly ignorant of the surrounding issues 
as to why complaints are filed to whom and what sorts of remedies are typically 
desired.  In my capacity as graduate student representative, despite having a 
very close relationship with the department chair I never came across a 
reporter willing to authorize me to share their report with the chair.  They 
always wanted to keep it informal and low key- at best I was asked to confront 
the professor in question that I was aware of what was going on with an 
anonymous person.

What I'm suggesting is that these volunteers discuss directly with the 
reporters the options available, and that includes every level of escalation, 
even to other ombudsman.  This doesn't seem particularly difficult to grasp, 
and allows a less experienced volunteer to usher in advice and support from the 
rest of the team.

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 29, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Ross Gardler  wrote:
>
> I don’t think you’ll see that benefit. Privacy and safety from repudiation is 
> a critical factor. You don't get that with a group sharing experiences and 
> reports. In some cases I have agreed never to reveal the fact a complaint was 
> made. That’s why I have only provided estimated counts. I don’t want to go 
> back and count (in fact I don’t even keep the emails in some cases).
>
>
>
> I'm not saying a group is bad, more choice is good. All I'm saying is that 
> the primary goal of this focused activity is to deal with the specifics and 
> thus extracting generalities in small numbers and non-specific summaries of 
> unique situations is not so helpful.
>
>
>
> A more important goal, in the foundation rather than individual sense, is to 
> deal with the root cause and make the approach being discussed here 
> unnecessary.
>
>
>
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
>
>
> From: Joseph Schaefer
> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 10:56 AM
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache 
> Projects?)
>
>
>
> Also the reasoning about avoiding one man shows for software projects applies 
> equally well to our ingress reporting strategy.  Right now the only person 
> who has acquired any substantial real word experience dealing with such 
> reports is Ross, and perhaps a few other individuals who have proxied reports 
> to him on behalf of another.  Ross won't be president forever, and hence 
> won't be the perpetual ultimate point of contact for abuse reports, should we 
> still consider that a necessity.
>
> Hence saddling this responsibility to a small team has all the social 
> advantages that a collaborative group of developers has over a one man 
> 

RE: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

[Ross Gardler]

Yes its positive and I've supported it every step, including stating whatever 
folks decide is best.  I'm just saying that the kind of reporting you hope for 
is unlikely to materialize.



Sent from my Windows 10 phone



From: Joseph Schaefer
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 12:03 PM
To: dev@community.apache.org
Cc: Joseph Schaefer
Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache 
Projects?)



So whittling down the access to this information from 600 odd members to a 
handful of people isn't a positive step Ross?  We can certainly debate the 
necessity for an ombudsman alias but that has little to do with the benefits of 
having a collaborative team of people to deal with this.

Keep in mind Ross that your own expertise in this matter is limited to your own 
direct experiences- we as an org have absolutely no insight into how well you 
have done in this capacity.  Again we should look at the facts like retainment 
and satisfaction of the reporter- what we're doing isn't enough if the person 
just winds up walking away from the asf post hoc.

The org has not paid for your training in this matter, and your business 
training from dealing with sexual harassment issues at work does not directly 
translate because there are no employees here at the asf.  Trust me, I've sat 
through those same dull meetings myself- it's more about what not to do to 
avoid a federal case being filed against the company.

I too have some experiences dealing with other students being sexually harassed 
by their professors, so I'm not particularly ignorant of the surrounding issues 
as to why complaints are filed to whom and what sorts of remedies are typically 
desired.  In my capacity as graduate student representative, despite having a 
very close relationship with the department chair I never came across a 
reporter willing to authorize me to share their report with the chair.  They 
always wanted to keep it informal and low key- at best I was asked to confront 
the professor in question that I was aware of what was going on with an 
anonymous person.

What I'm suggesting is that these volunteers discuss directly with the 
reporters the options available, and that includes every level of escalation, 
even to other ombudsman.  This doesn't seem particularly difficult to grasp, 
and allows a less experienced volunteer to usher in advice and support from the 
rest of the team.

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 29, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Ross Gardler  wrote:
>
> I don’t think you’ll see that benefit. Privacy and safety from repudiation is 
> a critical factor. You don't get that with a group sharing experiences and 
> reports. In some cases I have agreed never to reveal the fact a complaint was 
> made. That’s why I have only provided estimated counts. I don’t want to go 
> back and count (in fact I don’t even keep the emails in some cases).
>
>
>
> I'm not saying a group is bad, more choice is good. All I'm saying is that 
> the primary goal of this focused activity is to deal with the specifics and 
> thus extracting generalities in small numbers and non-specific summaries of 
> unique situations is not so helpful.
>
>
>
> A more important goal, in the foundation rather than individual sense, is to 
> deal with the root cause and make the approach being discussed here 
> unnecessary.
>
>
>
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
>
>
> From: Joseph Schaefer
> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 10:56 AM
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache 
> Projects?)
>
>
>
> Also the reasoning about avoiding one man shows for software projects applies 
> equally well to our ingress reporting strategy.  Right now the only person 
> who has acquired any substantial real word experience dealing with such 
> reports is Ross, and perhaps a few other individuals who have proxied reports 
> to him on behalf of another.  Ross won't be president forever, and hence 
> won't be the perpetual ultimate point of contact for abuse reports, should we 
> still consider that a necessity.
>
> Hence saddling this responsibility to a small team has all the social 
> advantages that a collaborative group of developers has over a one man 
> effort, from both a survivability standpoint and a performance standpoint.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On May 29, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Joe Schaefer  
>> wrote:
>>
>> No the president is definitely not part of the problem Niclas.  We're 
>> discussing the delivery mechanism for the most part, as well as reasoning 
>> about why some people insist on having an officer listed as the "ultimate" 
>> reporting mechanism.
>>
>>
>>
>> My own experience dealing with sexual harassment reports when I was in 
>> graduate school is 

RE: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

[Ross Gardler]

I don’t think you’ll see that benefit. Privacy and safety from repudiation is a 
critical factor. You don't get that with a group sharing experiences and 
reports. In some cases I have agreed never to reveal the fact a complaint was 
made. That’s why I have only provided estimated counts. I don’t want to go back 
and count (in fact I don’t even keep the emails in some cases).



I'm not saying a group is bad, more choice is good. All I'm saying is that the 
primary goal of this focused activity is to deal with the specifics and thus 
extracting generalities in small numbers and non-specific summaries of unique 
situations is not so helpful.



A more important goal, in the foundation rather than individual sense, is to 
deal with the root cause and make the approach being discussed here unnecessary.



Sent from my Windows 10 phone



From: Joseph Schaefer
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 10:56 AM
To: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache 
Projects?)



Also the reasoning about avoiding one man shows for software projects applies 
equally well to our ingress reporting strategy.  Right now the only person who 
has acquired any substantial real word experience dealing with such reports is 
Ross, and perhaps a few other individuals who have proxied reports to him on 
behalf of another.  Ross won't be president forever, and hence won't be the 
perpetual ultimate point of contact for abuse reports, should we still consider 
that a necessity.

Hence saddling this responsibility to a small team has all the social 
advantages that a collaborative group of developers has over a one man effort, 
from both a survivability standpoint and a performance standpoint.

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 29, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Joe Schaefer  
> wrote:
>
> No the president is definitely not part of the problem Niclas.  We're 
> discussing the delivery mechanism for the most part, as well as reasoning 
> about why some people insist on having an officer listed as the "ultimate" 
> reporting mechanism.
>
>
>
> My own experience dealing with sexual harassment reports when I was in 
> graduate school is that the reporters felt more comfortable reporting to 
> people like me who had relatively little formality in our power or position, 
> because what they were looking for was not a formal reprimand, but simply to 
> have the misbehavior stopped, without risk of retribution towards the 
> reporter.  The higher you go up the formal ladder, the less likely you will 
> be successful from the reporter's standpoint in achieving a positive outcome 
> "from their perspective".   Again it's about what's in the reporter's best 
> interests: sometimes all they want is a shoulder to cry on, and some empathy 
> for their plight.  If we can positively change the situation for the better 
> that's great, but it certainly doesn't require a formal title at Apache to 
> achieve that goal, most of the time.  But when it does, that can always 
> inform the discussion with the ombudsperson instead of being the starting 
> point for a report.
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 6:17 AM, Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
>
>
> Is a president-private@ mail forward out of the question? If the president
> is part of the problem, then inform to send to board-private@ instead?
>
> Niclas
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>  wrote:
>>> Roman,
>>> I've been beating the archiving problem with president@ like a dead
>> horse for the past week- what
>>> on earth have you been reading to avoid that reality?
>>
>> Archiving per se is not a problem. If the archive is only available to
>> the board I'm border line ok with that.
>> What I didn't know (and it didn't come up in your emails) is that
>> there could be other folks having access
>> to the content of president@ who may or may not be on the board.
>> That's a big, huge problem.
>>
>>> Furthermore, I doubt president@ has an associated qmail owner file,
>> which means any addresses listed in that alias that go to domains whose
>> mail servers do strict SPF checks will BOUNCE email from major email
>> providers who publish such rules, and those bounce mails may wind up being
>> DROPPED by Apache's qmail server since it's attempt to deliver the bounce
>> mail back to the sender may also be REJECTED by the original sending domain.
>>
>> That is also a good point.
>>
>>> All of this leads to problems that, while some are fixable, others are
>> simply not.
>>> We need a better strategy, and it should be collaborative rather than
>> dictatorial.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean, but as I said ideally I'd like it to be an
>> alias for an officer
>> appointed by the board. That's my MVP. What Shane suggested builds up on
>> that

Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

[Joseph Schaefer]

Also the reasoning about avoiding one man shows for software projects applies 
equally well to our ingress reporting strategy.  Right now the only person who 
has acquired any substantial real word experience dealing with such reports is 
Ross, and perhaps a few other individuals who have proxied reports to him on 
behalf of another.  Ross won't be president forever, and hence won't be the 
perpetual ultimate point of contact for abuse reports, should we still consider 
that a necessity.

Hence saddling this responsibility to a small team has all the social 
advantages that a collaborative group of developers has over a one man effort, 
from both a survivability standpoint and a performance standpoint.

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 29, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Joe Schaefer  
> wrote:
> 
> No the president is definitely not part of the problem Niclas.  We're 
> discussing the delivery mechanism for the most part, as well as reasoning 
> about why some people insist on having an officer listed as the "ultimate" 
> reporting mechanism.
> 
> 
> 
> My own experience dealing with sexual harassment reports when I was in 
> graduate school is that the reporters felt more comfortable reporting to 
> people like me who had relatively little formality in our power or position, 
> because what they were looking for was not a formal reprimand, but simply to 
> have the misbehavior stopped, without risk of retribution towards the 
> reporter.  The higher you go up the formal ladder, the less likely you will 
> be successful from the reporter's standpoint in achieving a positive outcome 
> "from their perspective".   Again it's about what's in the reporter's best 
> interests: sometimes all they want is a shoulder to cry on, and some empathy 
> for their plight.  If we can positively change the situation for the better 
> that's great, but it certainly doesn't require a formal title at Apache to 
> achieve that goal, most of the time.  But when it does, that can always 
> inform the discussion with the ombudsperson instead of being the starting 
> point for a report.
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 6:17 AM, Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
> 
> 
> Is a president-private@ mail forward out of the question? If the president
> is part of the problem, then inform to send to board-private@ instead?
> 
> Niclas
> 
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>  wrote:
>>> Roman,
>>> I've been beating the archiving problem with president@ like a dead
>> horse for the past week- what
>>> on earth have you been reading to avoid that reality?
>> 
>> Archiving per se is not a problem. If the archive is only available to
>> the board I'm border line ok with that.
>> What I didn't know (and it didn't come up in your emails) is that
>> there could be other folks having access
>> to the content of president@ who may or may not be on the board.
>> That's a big, huge problem.
>> 
>>> Furthermore, I doubt president@ has an associated qmail owner file,
>> which means any addresses listed in that alias that go to domains whose
>> mail servers do strict SPF checks will BOUNCE email from major email
>> providers who publish such rules, and those bounce mails may wind up being
>> DROPPED by Apache's qmail server since it's attempt to deliver the bounce
>> mail back to the sender may also be REJECTED by the original sending domain.
>> 
>> That is also a good point.
>> 
>>> All of this leads to problems that, while some are fixable, others are
>> simply not.
>>> We need a better strategy, and it should be collaborative rather than
>> dictatorial.
>> 
>> Not sure what you mean, but as I said ideally I'd like it to be an
>> alias for an officer
>> appointed by the board. That's my MVP. What Shane suggested builds up on
>> that
>> and may provide an even better solution.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
> 
> 
> 

RE: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

[Ross Gardler]

I think Niclas meant “if the President were part of the complaint”, rather than 
them being part of the problem being solved. An unfortunate misunderstanding ??



I do think your points are valid. My experience supports them.



Sent from my Windows 10 phone



From: Joe Schaefer
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 10:17 AM
To: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache 
Projects?)



No the president is definitely not part of the problem Niclas.  We're 
discussing the delivery mechanism for the most part, as well as reasoning about 
why some people insist on having an officer listed as the "ultimate" reporting 
mechanism.



My own experience dealing with sexual harassment reports when I was in graduate 
school is that the reporters felt more comfortable reporting to people like me 
who had relatively little formality in our power or position, because what they 
were looking for was not a formal reprimand, but simply to have the misbehavior 
stopped, without risk of retribution towards the reporter.  The higher you go 
up the formal ladder, the less likely you will be successful from the 
reporter's standpoint in achieving a positive outcome "from their perspective". 
  Again it's about what's in the reporter's best interests: sometimes all they 
want is a shoulder to cry on, and some empathy for their plight.  If we can 
positively change the situation for the better that's great, but it certainly 
doesn't require a formal title at Apache to achieve that goal, most of the 
time.  But when it does, that can always inform the discussion with the 
ombudsperson instead of being the starting point for a report.



On Friday, May 27, 2016 6:17 AM, Niclas Hedhman  wrote:


Is a president-private@ mail forward out of the question? If the president
is part of the problem, then inform to send to board-private@ instead?

Niclas

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
wrote:

> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Joe Schaefer
>  wrote:
> > Roman,
> > I've been beating the archiving problem with president@ like a dead
> horse for the past week- what
> > on earth have you been reading to avoid that reality?
>
> Archiving per se is not a problem. If the archive is only available to
> the board I'm border line ok with that.
> What I didn't know (and it didn't come up in your emails) is that
> there could be other folks having access
> to the content of president@ who may or may not be on the board.
> That's a big, huge problem.
>
> > Furthermore, I doubt president@ has an associated qmail owner file,
> which means any addresses listed in that alias that go to domains whose
> mail servers do strict SPF checks will BOUNCE email from major email
> providers who publish such rules, and those bounce mails may wind up being
> DROPPED by Apache's qmail server since it's attempt to deliver the bounce
> mail back to the sender may also be REJECTED by the original sending domain.
>
> That is also a good point.
>
> > All of this leads to problems that, while some are fixable, others are
> simply not.
> > We need a better strategy, and it should be collaborative rather than
> dictatorial.
>
> Not sure what you mean, but as I said ideally I'd like it to be an
> alias for an officer
> appointed by the board. That's my MVP. What Shane suggested builds up on
> that
> and may provide an even better solution.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.

>



--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fzest.apache.org=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c17934174967c41aa92c808d387e523a7%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=%2f%2bfPVG45kF7FMD2QtUJUtiCkTc0Un2kW15oYv6jSEAY%3d
 - New Energy for Java

Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache Projects?)

[Joe Schaefer]

No the president is definitely not part of the problem Niclas.  We're 
discussing the delivery mechanism for the most part, as well as reasoning about 
why some people insist on having an officer listed as the "ultimate" reporting 
mechanism.



My own experience dealing with sexual harassment reports when I was in graduate 
school is that the reporters felt more comfortable reporting to people like me 
who had relatively little formality in our power or position, because what they 
were looking for was not a formal reprimand, but simply to have the misbehavior 
stopped, without risk of retribution towards the reporter.  The higher you go 
up the formal ladder, the less likely you will be successful from the 
reporter's standpoint in achieving a positive outcome "from their perspective". 
  Again it's about what's in the reporter's best interests: sometimes all they 
want is a shoulder to cry on, and some empathy for their plight.  If we can 
positively change the situation for the better that's great, but it certainly 
doesn't require a formal title at Apache to achieve that goal, most of the 
time.  But when it does, that can always inform the discussion with the 
ombudsperson instead of being the starting point for a report.



On Friday, May 27, 2016 6:17 AM, Niclas Hedhman  wrote:


Is a president-private@ mail forward out of the question? If the president
is part of the problem, then inform to send to board-private@ instead?

Niclas

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
wrote:

> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Joe Schaefer
>  wrote:
> > Roman,
> > I've been beating the archiving problem with president@ like a dead
> horse for the past week- what
> > on earth have you been reading to avoid that reality?
>
> Archiving per se is not a problem. If the archive is only available to
> the board I'm border line ok with that.
> What I didn't know (and it didn't come up in your emails) is that
> there could be other folks having access
> to the content of president@ who may or may not be on the board.
> That's a big, huge problem.
>
> > Furthermore, I doubt president@ has an associated qmail owner file,
> which means any addresses listed in that alias that go to domains whose
> mail servers do strict SPF checks will BOUNCE email from major email
> providers who publish such rules, and those bounce mails may wind up being
> DROPPED by Apache's qmail server since it's attempt to deliver the bounce
> mail back to the sender may also be REJECTED by the original sending domain.
>
> That is also a good point.
>
> > All of this leads to problems that, while some are fixable, others are
> simply not.
> > We need a better strategy, and it should be collaborative rather than
> dictatorial.
>
> Not sure what you mean, but as I said ideally I'd like it to be an
> alias for an officer
> appointed by the board. That's my MVP. What Shane suggested builds up on
> that
> and may provide an even better solution.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.

>



-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java

How is the keys page generated?

[John D. Ament]

Hi,

Reaching out to comdev as it seems to fall here...

How is the page at https://home.apache.org/keys generated?  If I fix my
fingerprint in ldap, is there a job that needs to run for the page to
refresh?

John