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

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Mark Thomas  wrote:
> On 10/06/2016 10:49, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 30/05/2016 19:55, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 30/05/2016 18:30, Ross Gardler wrote:
 Yes. Thanks to everyone working this out.
>>>
>>> Done. Thanks Marvin.
>>>
>>> The next step is to expand the list of contacts. The call for volunteers
>>> was made on the private members@ mailing list so, in keeping with the
>>> ASF policy of not copying information from a private list to a public
>>> one, I won't list those volunteers here. What I will do is pass the list
>>> to Ross for him to review. Once reviewed, I'll check with each of the
>>> volunteers to make sure they are happy being listed as a PoC and, if
>>> they are, get them added.
>>>
>>> It was suggested that each listed volunteer should include a link to a
>>> picture and a brief bio. Any concerns or objections? If not, can I
>>> suggest that the volunteers create
>>> https://home.apache.org/~availid/coc.html and we link to that?
>>
>> Sorry for being slow on this. The monthly release cycle distracted me.
>>
>> I've put together a draft for my coc.html page:
>> http://people.apache.org/~markt/coc.html
>>
>> The plan is to use this for my entry and as an example to the other CoC
>> PoC volunteers. Feedback very much welcome.
>
> I'm making progress on this slowly.
>
> I received no feedback so I have added myself as a CoC contact using the
> above draft. I'll contact the other volunteers next.

+1

I took a look at your profile page and it looked good to me. Thanks
for volunteering!

Marvin Humphrey

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org

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

[Mark Thomas]

On 10/06/2016 10:49, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 30/05/2016 19:55, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 30/05/2016 18:30, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> Yes. Thanks to everyone working this out.
>>
>> Done. Thanks Marvin.
>>
>> The next step is to expand the list of contacts. The call for volunteers
>> was made on the private members@ mailing list so, in keeping with the
>> ASF policy of not copying information from a private list to a public
>> one, I won't list those volunteers here. What I will do is pass the list
>> to Ross for him to review. Once reviewed, I'll check with each of the
>> volunteers to make sure they are happy being listed as a PoC and, if
>> they are, get them added.
>>
>> It was suggested that each listed volunteer should include a link to a
>> picture and a brief bio. Any concerns or objections? If not, can I
>> suggest that the volunteers create
>> https://home.apache.org/~availid/coc.html and we link to that?
> 
> Sorry for being slow on this. The monthly release cycle distracted me.
> 
> I've put together a draft for my coc.html page:
> http://people.apache.org/~markt/coc.html
> 
> The plan is to use this for my entry and as an example to the other CoC
> PoC volunteers. Feedback very much welcome.

I'm making progress on this slowly.

I received no feedback so I have added myself as a CoC contact using the
above draft. I'll contact the other volunteers next.

Mark


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org

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

[Mark Thomas]

On 30/05/2016 19:55, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 30/05/2016 18:30, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> Yes. Thanks to everyone working this out.
> 
> Done. Thanks Marvin.
> 
> The next step is to expand the list of contacts. The call for volunteers
> was made on the private members@ mailing list so, in keeping with the
> ASF policy of not copying information from a private list to a public
> one, I won't list those volunteers here. What I will do is pass the list
> to Ross for him to review. Once reviewed, I'll check with each of the
> volunteers to make sure they are happy being listed as a PoC and, if
> they are, get them added.
> 
> It was suggested that each listed volunteer should include a link to a
> picture and a brief bio. Any concerns or objections? If not, can I
> suggest that the volunteers create
> https://home.apache.org/~availid/coc.html and we link to that?

Sorry for being slow on this. The monthly release cycle distracted me.

I've put together a draft for my coc.html page:
http://people.apache.org/~markt/coc.html

The plan is to use this for my entry and as an example to the other CoC
PoC volunteers. Feedback very much welcome.

Mark

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

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Joseph Schaefer
 wrote:
> As others have said Roman, including Ross,  it is neither likely to be used 
> nor necessary to
> cleave a boundary between volunteers and Ross, but in the interests of 
> keeping the peace
> I'm willing to compromise.
> Your patch is ok with me.

Thank you for a quick review, Joe! I'll apply tmr morning (unless
somebody objects in the meantime).

Thanks,
Roman.

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

[Joseph Schaefer]

As others have said Roman, including Ross,  it is neither likely to be used nor 
necessary to cleave a boundary between volunteers and Ross, but in the 
interests of keeping the peace I'm willing to compromise.
Your patch is ok with me.

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 31, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Mark Thomas  wrote:
>>> On 30/05/2016 18:30, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> Yes. Thanks to everyone working this out.
>> 
>> Done. Thanks Marvin.
> 
> Good progress. Would an additional patch attached bellow be acceptable?
>https://paste.apache.org/FAVL
> 
> I said it once and I'll say it again, but perhaps better yet -- I'll just 
> quote
> Ross to make sure that my *intent* does't get misinterpreted and/or
> questioned by Joe again.
> 
> "My only concern is that there needs to be a single channel for
> official complaints. That should remain President (at least while the
> sitting President is willing to take on that responsibility)."
> 
> This is my very strong concern as to how the current text of CoC reads.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roman.

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

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Mark Thomas  wrote:
> On 30/05/2016 18:30, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> Yes. Thanks to everyone working this out.
>
> Done. Thanks Marvin.

Good progress. Would an additional patch attached bellow be acceptable?
https://paste.apache.org/FAVL

I said it once and I'll say it again, but perhaps better yet -- I'll just quote
Ross to make sure that my *intent* does't get misinterpreted and/or
questioned by Joe again.

"My only concern is that there needs to be a single channel for
official complaints. That should remain President (at least while the
sitting President is willing to take on that responsibility)."

This is my very strong concern as to how the current text of CoC reads.

Thanks,
Roman.

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

[Ross Gardler]

Mark shared the names with me privately. I have no concerns about the people, 
but I do have a thought (this may have already been addressed, if so forgive 
me)...

If I understand correctly each of these people would be identified as a contact 
point. They would be an option for a complainant.

My only concern is that there needs to be a single channel for official 
complaints. That should remain President (at least while the sitting President 
is willing to take on that responsibility). I do think that having a list of 
volunteers willing to address things in an unofficial capacity is a good idea. 
In my experience that vast majority of complaints are unofficial, having other 
avenues for these cases is a very good thing.

The reason I believe we should keep a single channel for official complaints is 
to ensure consistency in the way we handle them. Furthermore, some of the 
volunteers are not officers and thus have less protection should things go 
wrong.

Ross

> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Thomas [mailto:ma...@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 11:55 AM
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on
> Apache Projects?)
> 
> On 30/05/2016 18:30, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > Yes. Thanks to everyone working this out.
> 
> Done. Thanks Marvin.
> 
> The next step is to expand the list of contacts. The call for volunteers was
> made on the private members@ mailing list so, in keeping with the ASF policy
> of not copying information from a private list to a public one, I won't list 
> those
> volunteers here. What I will do is pass the list to Ross for him to review. 
> Once
> reviewed, I'll check with each of the volunteers to make sure they are happy
> being listed as a PoC and, if they are, get them added.
> 
> It was suggested that each listed volunteer should include a link to a picture
> and a brief bio. Any concerns or objections? If not, can I suggest that the
> volunteers create
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https:%2f%2fhome.apach
> e.org%2f~availid%2fcoc.html=01%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.
> com%7C1dace448ba26476c1e2808d388bbfc6b%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d
> 7cd011db47%7C1=kQlQ%2f%2fgGV0s9Ze0DJUZz2iTjKRo1r1CsMlsQ64
> TOW54%3d and we link to that?
> 
> Mark
> 
> > From: Mark Thomas
> > Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 1:53 AM
> > To: dev@community.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate
> on
> > Apache Projects?)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 29/05/2016 23:07, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Ross,
> >
> > There looks to be general agreement that archiving abuse reports is a
> > bad idea. On the grounds that handling these is a president@ function,
> > are you happy for Marvin's patch to be applied where you are listed
> > with your @a.o email as the only volunteer (and a note that the list
> > is expected to be expanded shortly)?
> >
> > Assuming you are OK with this, we can get this done and then discuss
> > expanding that list of volunteers and some of the other improvements
> > that have been suggested.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 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- 

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

[Mark Thomas]

On 30/05/2016 18:30, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Yes. Thanks to everyone working this out.

Done. Thanks Marvin.

The next step is to expand the list of contacts. The call for volunteers
was made on the private members@ mailing list so, in keeping with the
ASF policy of not copying information from a private list to a public
one, I won't list those volunteers here. What I will do is pass the list
to Ross for him to review. Once reviewed, I'll check with each of the
volunteers to make sure they are happy being listed as a PoC and, if
they are, get them added.

It was suggested that each listed volunteer should include a link to a
picture and a brief bio. Any concerns or objections? If not, can I
suggest that the volunteers create
https://home.apache.org/~availid/coc.html and we link to that?

Mark

> From: Mark Thomas
> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 1:53 AM
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache 
> Projects?)
> 
> 
> 
> On 29/05/2016 23:07, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Ross,
> 
> There looks to be general agreement that archiving abuse reports is a
> bad idea. On the grounds that handling these is a president@ function,
> are you happy for Marvin's patch to be applied where you are listed with
> your @a.o email as the only volunteer (and a note that the list is
> expected to be expanded shortly)?
> 
> Assuming you are OK with this, we can get this done and then discuss
> expanding that list of volunteers and some of the other improvements
> that have been suggested.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> 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  
>>> 

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

[Ross Gardler]

Yes. Thanks to everyone working this out.



Sent from my Windows 10 phone



From: Mark Thomas
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 1:53 AM
To: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache 
Projects?)



On 29/05/2016 23:07, Ross Gardler wrote:
> 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.

Ross,

There looks to be general agreement that archiving abuse reports is a
bad idea. On the grounds that handling these is a president@ function,
are you happy for Marvin's patch to be applied where you are listed with
your @a.o email as the only volunteer (and a note that the list is
expected to be expanded shortly)?

Assuming you are OK with this, we can get this done and then discuss
expanding that list of volunteers and some of the other improvements
that have been suggested.

Mark



>
> 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 

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

[Mark Thomas]

On 29/05/2016 23:07, Ross Gardler wrote:
> 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.

Ross,

There looks to be general agreement that archiving abuse reports is a
bad idea. On the grounds that handling these is a president@ function,
are you happy for Marvin's patch to be applied where you are listed with
your @a.o email as the only volunteer (and a note that the list is
expected to be expanded shortly)?

Assuming you are OK with this, we can get this done and then discuss
expanding that list of volunteers and some of the other improvements
that have been suggested.

Mark



> 
> 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 

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

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

[Niclas Hedhman]

Out of self-reflection, one should consider how much of this thread itself
emphasizes the antithesis of the OP... Just a thought!

Niclas

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Marvin Humphrey 
wrote:

> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Shane Curcuru 
> wrote:
>
> >> I would prefer for President, EVP, directors to agree on a single email
> >> alias that is an unarchived alias, with a published list of the specific
> >> ASF Officers or Members that it goes to directly (names to be approved
> >> by President).
> >
> > That is exactly my preference as well.
> >
> > Marvin, at this point what I'm about to ask of you is grossly unfair
> (since
> > your proposal, apparently doesn't really make anything worse) but would
> > you consider the above statement by Shane to be your course of action?
>
> Sure. There are several approaches which I'd be fine with. Shane's
> approach above seems sound.
>
> Elsethread I see a preference stated for an officer of the ASF on the
> alias.  I don't think that's necessary, so long as we have the
> President's designates. I'm anticipating that it will be the
> individuals who have already stepped forward on members@apache, though
> they have not yet explicitly granted permission to have their names
> published.
>
> I'll work up a new patch tomorrow when I'm a little more awake.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>



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

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

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Shane Curcuru  wrote:

>> I would prefer for President, EVP, directors to agree on a single email
>> alias that is an unarchived alias, with a published list of the specific
>> ASF Officers or Members that it goes to directly (names to be approved
>> by President).
>
> That is exactly my preference as well.
>
> Marvin, at this point what I'm about to ask of you is grossly unfair (since
> your proposal, apparently doesn't really make anything worse) but would
> you consider the above statement by Shane to be your course of action?

Sure. There are several approaches which I'd be fine with. Shane's
approach above seems sound.

Elsethread I see a preference stated for an officer of the ASF on the
alias.  I don't think that's necessary, so long as we have the
President's designates. I'm anticipating that it will be the
individuals who have already stepped forward on members@apache, though
they have not yet explicitly granted permission to have their names
published.

I'll work up a new patch tomorrow when I'm a little more awake.

Marvin Humphrey

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

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> To a native English reader, Shane's commentary is perfectly aligned with
> Marvin's patch.

Yes. Which is why I wrote: "Marvin, at this point what I'm about to
ask of you is
grossly unfair (since your proposal, apparently doesn't really make
anything worse)
but would you consider the above statement by Shane to be your course
of action?"

Marvin patch can definitely go ahead since it does NOT make the current
horrible situation any worse. It simply doesn't make it any better.
Hence +0 on it.

That said -- I still don't understand why we shouldn't follow the proposal that
Shane outlined.

If you're rushing to apply Marvin's patch -- fine -- go ahead. I'll
take care of Shane's
approach over the weekend and replace it then.

> There are absolutely no gaps in direction despite your
> fierce irrational opposition to having a pair of board members try to get
> something meaningful accomplished for the foundation.

Could you, please stop with posturing(*)? We had a discussion. That corrected
my understanding of what president@a.o does. What's difficult about this
to understand?

> How about letting people who want to fix this have a go at it without
> further obstruction and obfuscation, Roman?

The patch doesn't fix anything. It simply make an already horrible situation
no more horrible.

Thanks,
Roman.

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

[Roman Shaposhnik]

If you can find all the same detailed explanations that Shane has provided
in your paragraph simply saying "because I believe we still archive the
president@ alias" I'll buy you a beer.

Also, Joe, I'm sorry to say that -- but I do find your writing style *very*
difficult to follow when it comes to details.

Thanks,
Roman.

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> Here was your reply to me when I first pointed out the deficiencies with
> president@.  So much for the difficult to understand flowery prose, you keep
> changing your stripes with each passing hour:
>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Joseph Schaefer 
> wrote:
>>
>> Having a foundation wide CoC is great, but as to whether president@ is
>> effective I have
>> never seen the board report which indicates that it is actually being used
>> and things are
>> happening with those reports (if any).
>>
>> Rather than a generic officer address I suggest a dedicated alias with
>> named people in
>> the CoC responsible for follow up. Expectations of confidentiality need to
>> be communicated
>> because I believe we still archive the president@ alias.
>
> Joe, thank you for this suggestion. This is precisely the kind of
> actionable AND non-trivial
> suggestions that so far have been lacking on this thread.
>
> Shall we fork it into a separate thread to get a closure?
>  Show original message
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer 
> wrote:
>> Here's what I wrote to you on members@ Roman:
>>
>> """
>> You're overlooking the archiving problem with president@ Roman.
>> That we tell people in the CoC that a report to that channel is available
>> to roughly 600 people unknown to them is needed if we are going to
>> not paper over the fact that it's really not what a normal person would
>> consider "confidential" despite the language in the CoC.  Much less the
>> additional hundred or so unknown people on a pmc list who would have
>> access to the report if it were made to private@pmc.
>> """
>>
>> Hard to have an intelligent conversation with you Roman when only one of
>> us
>> is paying attention to what the other has said.
>
> It would be much easier to have an intelligent conversation with me,
> Joe, if your
> english prose was structured along the lines of what Shane wrote to me.
>
> I understand your desire for emphatic, floury language, but what you
> don't realize
> is that you make it very difficult to distill data points from your
> paragraph by employing
> that kind of language.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
>

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

[Joe Schaefer]

To a native English reader, Shane's commentary is perfectly aligned with 
Marvin's patch.  There are absolutely no gaps in direction despite your fierce 
irrational opposition to having a pair of board members try to get something 
meaningful accomplished for the foundation.
How about letting people who want to fix this have a go at it without further 
obstruction and obfuscation, Roman? 

On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:35 PM, Joe Schaefer 
 wrote:
 

 Here is what Shane said:"Emails to president@ (as far as I can tell) go to an 
alias which
forwards to Ross (and EVP, and possibly someone else), as well as going
to an archived mailbox which I and others can access (not sure if it's
just a group of officers & board, or if this archive is Member access).

Happy for someone from infra to point out the specific technical
details, but no, if we want a fully confidential CoC reporting method,
in my mind president@ is *not* sufficient for the long term.

I would prefer for President, EVP, directors to agree on a single email
alias that is an unarchived alias, with a published list of the specific
ASF Officers or Members that it goes to directly (names to be approved
by President).

"Note the bit about members staffing the alias.  Nothing in common with 
anything you have said despite your shoddy reading and argumentation skills. 

    On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:31 PM, Joe Schaefer 
 wrote:
 

 Here was your reply to me when I first pointed out the deficiencies with 
president@.  So much for the difficult to understand flowery prose, you keep 
changing your stripes with each passing hour:

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Joseph Schaefer  wrote:
>
> Having a foundation wide CoC is great, but as to whether president@ is 
> effective I have
> never seen the board report which indicates that it is actually being used 
> and things are
> happening with those reports (if any).
>
> Rather than a generic officer address I suggest a dedicated alias with named 
> people in
> the CoC responsible for follow up. Expectations of confidentiality need to be 
> communicated
> because I believe we still archive the president@ alias.

Joe, thank you for this suggestion. This is precisely the kind of
actionable AND non-trivial
suggestions that so far have been lacking on this thread.

Shall we fork it into a separate thread to get a closure? Show original message 
   On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik  
wrote:
 

 On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> Here's what I wrote to you on members@ Roman:
>
> """
> You're overlooking the archiving problem with president@ Roman.
> That we tell people in the CoC that a report to that channel is available
> to roughly 600 people unknown to them is needed if we are going to
> not paper over the fact that it's really not what a normal person would
> consider "confidential" despite the language in the CoC.  Much less the
> additional hundred or so unknown people on a pmc list who would have
> access to the report if it were made to private@pmc.
> """
>
> Hard to have an intelligent conversation with you Roman when only one of us
> is paying attention to what the other has said.

It would be much easier to have an intelligent conversation with me,
Joe, if your
english prose was structured along the lines of what Shane wrote to me.

I understand your desire for emphatic, floury language, but what you
don't realize
is that you make it very difficult to distill data points from your
paragraph by employing
that kind of language.

Thanks,
Roman.






  

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

[Joe Schaefer]

Here is what Shane said:"Emails to president@ (as far as I can tell) go to an 
alias which
forwards to Ross (and EVP, and possibly someone else), as well as going
to an archived mailbox which I and others can access (not sure if it's
just a group of officers & board, or if this archive is Member access).

Happy for someone from infra to point out the specific technical
details, but no, if we want a fully confidential CoC reporting method,
in my mind president@ is *not* sufficient for the long term.

I would prefer for President, EVP, directors to agree on a single email
alias that is an unarchived alias, with a published list of the specific
ASF Officers or Members that it goes to directly (names to be approved
by President).

"Note the bit about members staffing the alias.  Nothing in common with 
anything you have said despite your shoddy reading and argumentation skills. 

On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:31 PM, Joe Schaefer 
 wrote:
 

 Here was your reply to me when I first pointed out the deficiencies with 
president@.  So much for the difficult to understand flowery prose, you keep 
changing your stripes with each passing hour:

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Joseph Schaefer  wrote:
>
> Having a foundation wide CoC is great, but as to whether president@ is 
> effective I have
> never seen the board report which indicates that it is actually being used 
> and things are
> happening with those reports (if any).
>
> Rather than a generic officer address I suggest a dedicated alias with named 
> people in
> the CoC responsible for follow up. Expectations of confidentiality need to be 
> communicated
> because I believe we still archive the president@ alias.

Joe, thank you for this suggestion. This is precisely the kind of
actionable AND non-trivial
suggestions that so far have been lacking on this thread.

Shall we fork it into a separate thread to get a closure? Show original message 
   On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik  
wrote:
 

 On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> Here's what I wrote to you on members@ Roman:
>
> """
> You're overlooking the archiving problem with president@ Roman.
> That we tell people in the CoC that a report to that channel is available
> to roughly 600 people unknown to them is needed if we are going to
> not paper over the fact that it's really not what a normal person would
> consider "confidential" despite the language in the CoC.  Much less the
> additional hundred or so unknown people on a pmc list who would have
> access to the report if it were made to private@pmc.
> """
>
> Hard to have an intelligent conversation with you Roman when only one of us
> is paying attention to what the other has said.

It would be much easier to have an intelligent conversation with me,
Joe, if your
english prose was structured along the lines of what Shane wrote to me.

I understand your desire for emphatic, floury language, but what you
don't realize
is that you make it very difficult to distill data points from your
paragraph by employing
that kind of language.

Thanks,
Roman.




  

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

[Joe Schaefer]

Here was your reply to me when I first pointed out the deficiencies with 
president@.  So much for the difficult to understand flowery prose, you keep 
changing your stripes with each passing hour:

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Joseph Schaefer  wrote:
>
> Having a foundation wide CoC is great, but as to whether president@ is 
> effective I have
> never seen the board report which indicates that it is actually being used 
> and things are
> happening with those reports (if any).
>
> Rather than a generic officer address I suggest a dedicated alias with named 
> people in
> the CoC responsible for follow up. Expectations of confidentiality need to be 
> communicated
> because I believe we still archive the president@ alias.

Joe, thank you for this suggestion. This is precisely the kind of
actionable AND non-trivial
suggestions that so far have been lacking on this thread.

Shall we fork it into a separate thread to get a closure? Show original message 
   On Friday, May 27, 2016 10:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik  
wrote:
 

 On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> Here's what I wrote to you on members@ Roman:
>
> """
> You're overlooking the archiving problem with president@ Roman.
> That we tell people in the CoC that a report to that channel is available
> to roughly 600 people unknown to them is needed if we are going to
> not paper over the fact that it's really not what a normal person would
> consider "confidential" despite the language in the CoC.  Much less the
> additional hundred or so unknown people on a pmc list who would have
> access to the report if it were made to private@pmc.
> """
>
> Hard to have an intelligent conversation with you Roman when only one of us
> is paying attention to what the other has said.

It would be much easier to have an intelligent conversation with me,
Joe, if your
english prose was structured along the lines of what Shane wrote to me.

I understand your desire for emphatic, floury language, but what you
don't realize
is that you make it very difficult to distill data points from your
paragraph by employing
that kind of language.

Thanks,
Roman.


  

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

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer  wrote:
> Here's what I wrote to you on members@ Roman:
>
> """
> You're overlooking the archiving problem with president@ Roman.
> That we tell people in the CoC that a report to that channel is available
> to roughly 600 people unknown to them is needed if we are going to
> not paper over the fact that it's really not what a normal person would
> consider "confidential" despite the language in the CoC.  Much less the
> additional hundred or so unknown people on a pmc list who would have
> access to the report if it were made to private@pmc.
> """
>
> Hard to have an intelligent conversation with you Roman when only one of us
> is paying attention to what the other has said.

It would be much easier to have an intelligent conversation with me,
Joe, if your
english prose was structured along the lines of what Shane wrote to me.

I understand your desire for emphatic, floury language, but what you
don't realize
is that you make it very difficult to distill data points from your
paragraph by employing
that kind of language.

Thanks,
Roman.

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

[Joe Schaefer]

Here's what I wrote to you on members@ Roman:
"""You're overlooking the archiving problem with president@ Roman.That we tell 
people in the CoC that a report to that channel is availableto roughly 600 
people unknown to them is needed if we are going tonot paper over the fact that 
it's really not what a normal person wouldconsider "confidential" despite the 
language in the CoC.  Much less theadditional hundred or so unknown people on a 
pmc list who would haveaccess to the report if it were made to private@pmc."""
Hard to have an intelligent conversation with you Roman when only one of us is 
paying attention to what the other has said.
 

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 8:25 PM, 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.

  

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

[Niclas Hedhman]

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?)

[Roman Shaposhnik]

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.

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

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Shane Curcuru  wrote:
> Roman Shaposhnik wrote on 5/26/16 6:20 PM:
> ...
>> Before I answer that question, lets clarify something:
>>
>>> *   Keep the current mechanism (report to the archived alias 
>>> president@apache)
>>> but change the CoC text to indicate that reporting is not confidential.
>>
>> My understanding from the explanation Ross gave me was that reports to
>> president@a.o were strictly confidential (which in my mind also translated 
>> into
>> lack of archives). Ross, can you please elaborate on this?
>
> Emails to president@ (as far as I can tell) go to an alias which
> forwards to Ross (and EVP, and possibly someone else), as well as going
> to an archived mailbox which I and others can access (not sure if it's
> just a group of officers & board, or if this archive is Member access).

This is horrible. Not you, Shane, of course, but rather my understanding
of what it does.

> Happy for someone from infra to point out the specific technical
> details, but no, if we want a fully confidential CoC reporting method,
> in my mind president@ is *not* sufficient for the long term.
>
> I would prefer for President, EVP, directors to agree on a single email
> alias that is an unarchived alias, with a published list of the specific
> ASF Officers or Members that it goes to directly (names to be approved
> by President).

That is exactly my preference as well.

Marvin, at this point what I'm about to ask of you is grossly unfair (since
your proposal, apparently doesn't really make anything worse) but would
you consider the above statement by Shane to be your course of action?

Thanks,
Roman.

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

[Shane Curcuru]

Roman Shaposhnik wrote on 5/26/16 6:20 PM:
...
> Before I answer that question, lets clarify something:
> 
>> *   Keep the current mechanism (report to the archived alias 
>> president@apache)
>> but change the CoC text to indicate that reporting is not confidential.
> 
> My understanding from the explanation Ross gave me was that reports to
> president@a.o were strictly confidential (which in my mind also translated 
> into
> lack of archives). Ross, can you please elaborate on this?

Emails to president@ (as far as I can tell) go to an alias which
forwards to Ross (and EVP, and possibly someone else), as well as going
to an archived mailbox which I and others can access (not sure if it's
just a group of officers & board, or if this archive is Member access).

Happy for someone from infra to point out the specific technical
details, but no, if we want a fully confidential CoC reporting method,
in my mind president@ is *not* sufficient for the long term.

I would prefer for President, EVP, directors to agree on a single email
alias that is an unarchived alias, with a published list of the specific
ASF Officers or Members that it goes to directly (names to be approved
by President).

- Shane

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

[Roman Shaposhnik]

+Ross for explicit clarification.

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Marvin Humphrey  wrote:
> Hi, Roman,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:
>
>> Like I said, having a group of volunteers is fine as an intermediate
>> step of handling the concern.  The ultimate escalation channel has to be a
>> single officer appointed by the board.
>
> So, what approach would work for you?

Before I answer that question, lets clarify something:

> *   Keep the current mechanism (report to the archived alias president@apache)
> but change the CoC text to indicate that reporting is not confidential.

My understanding from the explanation Ross gave me was that reports to
president@a.o were strictly confidential (which in my mind also translated into
lack of archives). Ross, can you please elaborate on this?

Thanks,
Roman.

> *   Report to the unarchived alias ombud@apache and require that the President
> (or their delegate) be one of the addresses behind the alias.
> *   Report to individual volunteers but have the volunteers report something
> about the incident to the President.
> *   Report to ombud@apache alias but have the volunteers behind
> ombud@apache report something about the incident to the President.
> *   ...
>
>> Only having president@ there as an escalation channel gives me the needed
>> level of comfort to stand behind our CoC and be confident that even those
>> wishing ultimate anonymity and bringing us highest level of concerns from
>> the point of view of how it may backfire on the individual can be
>> accommodated.
>
> So if I understand correctly, your concern is that someone reporting a
> violation of the code of conduct may be subject to retaliation.  But isn't
> that possibility what we're trying to mitigate by moving the reporting
> mechanism away from the archived alias president@apache, which 700+ ASF
> Members (including emeritus Members) have access to?
>
>> During the good times we all feel like we're one big happy family and why
>> the heck won't we all get along and trust each other. But CoC and its
>> escalation policy is NOT written for those times.
>
> I would certainly agree that the escalation aspects of the CoC need to be
> well-handled, for the sake of all parties involved in any incident.
>
> But I would also say that the fact that we have a CoC, and that it is taken
> seriously and implemented well, also has a beneficial effect during the "good
> times".  It is good to know that the safety net is there.
>
> Marvin Humphrey

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

[Marvin Humphrey]

Hi, Roman,

Thanks for the review.

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:

> Like I said, having a group of volunteers is fine as an intermediate
> step of handling the concern.  The ultimate escalation channel has to be a
> single officer appointed by the board.

So, what approach would work for you?

*   Keep the current mechanism (report to the archived alias president@apache)
but change the CoC text to indicate that reporting is not confidential.
*   Report to the unarchived alias ombud@apache and require that the President
(or their delegate) be one of the addresses behind the alias.
*   Report to individual volunteers but have the volunteers report something
about the incident to the President.
*   Report to ombud@apache alias but have the volunteers behind
ombud@apache report something about the incident to the President.
*   ...

> Only having president@ there as an escalation channel gives me the needed
> level of comfort to stand behind our CoC and be confident that even those
> wishing ultimate anonymity and bringing us highest level of concerns from
> the point of view of how it may backfire on the individual can be
> accommodated.

So if I understand correctly, your concern is that someone reporting a
violation of the code of conduct may be subject to retaliation.  But isn't
that possibility what we're trying to mitigate by moving the reporting
mechanism away from the archived alias president@apache, which 700+ ASF
Members (including emeritus Members) have access to?

> During the good times we all feel like we're one big happy family and why
> the heck won't we all get along and trust each other. But CoC and its
> escalation policy is NOT written for those times.

I would certainly agree that the escalation aspects of the CoC need to be
well-handled, for the sake of all parties involved in any incident.

But I would also say that the fact that we have a CoC, and that it is taken
seriously and implemented well, also has a beneficial effect during the "good
times".  It is good to know that the safety net is there.

Marvin Humphrey

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

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Joe Schaefer
>  wrote:
>> Patch looks pretty straightforward Marvin.
>
> It may very well be. In fact, if it looks so straightforward you should be 
> able
> to provide a diff in no time at all. Please do so at your earliest 
> convenience.

Several folks pointed out: https://paste.apache.org/3AuO to me which I missed.
Apologies for that.

Now that I'm looking at the modification I'm very, very strongly -1 on
it. Like I said,
having a group of volunteers is fine as an intermediate step of
handling the concern.
The ultimate escalation channel has to be a single officer appointed
by the board.

Only having president@ there as an escalation channel gives me the needed level
of comfort to stand behind our CoC and be confident that even those
wishing ultimate
anonymity and bringing us highest level of concerns from the point of
view of how it
may backfire on the individual can be accommodated.

During the good times we all feel like we're one big happy family and
why the heck
won't we all get along and trust each other. But CoC and its
escalation policy is
NOT written for those times.

For more on why this is a much more involved subject I highly
recommend reading this:

http://www.amazon.com/Bravehearts-Whistle-Blowing-Snowden-Mark-Hertsgaard/dp/1510703373

One again, to recap:

-1

Thanks,
Roman.

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

[Joe Schaefer]

Actually it's more about senders with strict SPF rules that the qmail owner 
files will correct for.  It would be particularly bad for such email to get 
lost in transit. 

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 10:16 PM, Joe Schaefer 
 wrote:
 

 Patch looks pretty straightforward Marvin.  However if we're going to use 
apache.org personal addresses, those volunteers should ask infrastructure to 
create qmail owner files for their accounts, to ensure that all emails sent 
from providers using DKIM and the like will be successfully delivered.
 

    On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 9:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey 
 wrote:
 

 On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Joe Schaefer
>  wrote:
>> ...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...

This is a nice contained task which fixes a concrete issue, and an opportunity
to make some tangible progress.

> If I wanted to report something confidential I think I'd like to know
> exactly who gets those messages.
>
> So the best might be to simply list the @apache.org IDs of people who
> volunteer to receive such messages and process them with the required care,
> so that people who want to report something can choose who to report to.
> People can then use http://people.apache.org/phonebook.html to find out what
> roles those people have at the ASF.

We already have a set of volunteers who were willing to serve behind the ombud
alias.  Hopefully we can confirm their willingness to add their names to a
public list.

Here's a simple patch:

https://paste.apache.org/3AuO

Thoughts

I don't think the ASF Code of Conduct page has any specific maintainer
attached to it beyond the Board itself.  I figure that once we have consensus
on a patch and a volunteer list, I can run the change by board@apache for
completeness, then apply.

Marvin Humphrey




  

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

[Joe Schaefer]

Patch looks pretty straightforward Marvin.  However if we're going to use 
apache.org personal addresses, those volunteers should ask infrastructure to 
create qmail owner files for their accounts, to ensure that all emails sent 
from providers using DKIM and the like will be successfully delivered.
 

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 9:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey 
 wrote:
 

 On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Joe Schaefer
>  wrote:
>> ...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...

This is a nice contained task which fixes a concrete issue, and an opportunity
to make some tangible progress.

> If I wanted to report something confidential I think I'd like to know
> exactly who gets those messages.
>
> So the best might be to simply list the @apache.org IDs of people who
> volunteer to receive such messages and process them with the required care,
> so that people who want to report something can choose who to report to.
> People can then use http://people.apache.org/phonebook.html to find out what
> roles those people have at the ASF.

We already have a set of volunteers who were willing to serve behind the ombud
alias.  Hopefully we can confirm their willingness to add their names to a
public list.

Here's a simple patch:

https://paste.apache.org/3AuO

Thoughts

I don't think the ASF Code of Conduct page has any specific maintainer
attached to it beyond the Board itself.  I figure that once we have consensus
on a patch and a volunteer list, I can run the change by board@apache for
completeness, then apply.

Marvin Humphrey


  

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

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Marvin Humphrey  wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Joe Schaefer
>>  wrote:
>>> ...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...
>
> This is a nice contained task which fixes a concrete issue, and an opportunity
> to make some tangible progress.
>
>> If I wanted to report something confidential I think I'd like to know
>> exactly who gets those messages.
>>
>> So the best might be to simply list the @apache.org IDs of people who
>> volunteer to receive such messages and process them with the required care,
>> so that people who want to report something can choose who to report to.
>> People can then use http://people.apache.org/phonebook.html to find out what
>> roles those people have at the ASF.
>
> We already have a set of volunteers who were willing to serve behind the ombud
> alias.  Hopefully we can confirm their willingness to add their names to a
> public list.
>
> Here's a simple patch:
>
> https://paste.apache.org/3AuO
>
> Thoughts
>
> I don't think the ASF Code of Conduct page has any specific maintainer
> attached to it beyond the Board itself.  I figure that once we have consensus
> on a patch and a volunteer list, I can run the change by board@apache for
> completeness, then apply.

I'd be very interested in helping to review the patch. I also 110%
agree with Marvin
that once we reach consensus here it'll have to be explicitly brought to board's
attention at one of the monthly meetings.

Thanks,
Roman.

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

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Joe Schaefer
>  wrote:
>> ...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...

This is a nice contained task which fixes a concrete issue, and an opportunity
to make some tangible progress.

> If I wanted to report something confidential I think I'd like to know
> exactly who gets those messages.
>
> So the best might be to simply list the @apache.org IDs of people who
> volunteer to receive such messages and process them with the required care,
> so that people who want to report something can choose who to report to.
> People can then use http://people.apache.org/phonebook.html to find out what
> roles those people have at the ASF.

We already have a set of volunteers who were willing to serve behind the ombud
alias.  Hopefully we can confirm their willingness to add their names to a
public list.

Here's a simple patch:

https://paste.apache.org/3AuO

Thoughts

I don't think the ASF Code of Conduct page has any specific maintainer
attached to it beyond the Board itself.  I figure that once we have consensus
on a patch and a volunteer list, I can run the change by board@apache for
completeness, then apply.

Marvin Humphrey

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

[Joe Schaefer]

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 to
>>> look at gathering some ideas about how to tackle the problem and also
>>> hear about any lessons learned from any previous or similar strategies.
>>>
>>> What do people think?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Sharan
>>>
>