Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 2:38 PM Rich Bowen wrote: > ...So, yeah, let many flowers bloom, and hundreds or thousands of local > user groups giving talks about Apache, and Apache projects. I have no > objection whatsoever. But the moment we give them official recognition, > and list them on an .apache.org website, everything changes. People's > perspective of the group changes. And our legal obligations change, > because we have officially recognized the group Maybe it depends how that recognition / listing is phrased? I haven't followed the details so feel free to tell me if this is off but how about listing people "who are members of Apache communities (committers, PMC members, ASF members) and happy to organize local meetups about Apache communities and projects" ? Listing them on the comdev website will help make these things happen but there's no commitment on our side as to what will happen in these meetings - we can say that those meetups are very welcome, but we don't endorse the content. And formulate a few recommendations, so that outsiders can tell by themselves if organizers are respecting the spirit. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
On 12/13/19 12:18 AM, Alex Harui wrote: I've only been partially following, and I hear and respect the desire for "quality control", but IMO, people talk about Apache all of the time in other events. For example, when Flex joined the incubator in January 2012, there was a Flex user conference shortly after in April 2012. I spoke there about the transition from Adobe to Apache and laid out what I knew about Apache at the time. I posted slides beforehand, but I'm not sure our Mentors looked them over carefully. We were a podling, so no official PMC members and no Mentors were in attendance. IIRC, I also practiced this presentation at a small Meetup before the conference. I'll bet this happens at lots of conferences for podlings. I included a disclaimer that I wasn't speaking on behalf of Apache, just passing on what I've learned so far. Hence, my gentle suggestions that disclaiming is better than too much oversight on these community meetings, otherwise ALC is going to be under a heavier burden than other community outreach. If that's because you want to make ALC the official way to learn about Apache, roughly as formal as the Incubator, ok, then fine, but that might cause other volunteers to shy away or find a path of less overhead by skipping the ALC title and buying a case of beer instead. I have no objection to, as you say, people giving talks about Apache, with no "quality control." I feel, however, that there's a world of difference between that, and us bestowing an *official title* on a group with the Apache name and trademarks. As it happens, so does our Trademarks team, and our Marketing team. So, yeah, let many flowers bloom, and hundreds or thousands of local user groups giving talks about Apache, and Apache projects. I have no objection whatsoever. But the moment we give them official recognition, and list them on an .apache.org website, everything changes. People's perspective of the group changes. And our legal obligations change, because we have officially recognized the group. --Rich On 12/12/19, 2:10 PM, "Craig Russell" wrote: Hi Swapnil, I realize I'm coming late to this discussion but would like to offer a small bit of feedback. Like others, I think we need to try to get qualified people running local groups. One Member plus two PMC members gives us three, which is a magic number for decision-making here. Even if they don't attend all meetings, it's at least some oversight from folks who have earned merit. Random talks that present how we do things here, by people we don't know, makes me nervous. We might consider requiring presentations to be posted publicly some time (one week?) before the meeting which would allow for at least some oversight. And there are plenty of such presentations publicly available and some can be edited to suit (e.g. see the Training podling for examples of presentations on The Apache Way). I endorse the concept and look forward to a proposal. Craig > On Dec 11, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Swapnil M Mane wrote: > > Thank you so much, everyone, for your kind and valuable inputs. > As a next step, we will work on drafting the ALC proposal to the board. > > > - Best regards, > Swapnil M Mane, > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.apache.orgdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C3ac2d86ccbf54019b11c08d77f500aba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637117854065911699sdata=NQimXPkKRHJo%2FpQ9yYjcnqVPJuVHumRLi6GYPVyQICE%3Dreserved=0 > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:20 AM Rich Bowen wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/6/19 4:42 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >>> One potential (if not solution -- but at least a line of thought) could be >>> to bring these efforts into the fold officially by requiring them to be >>> official sub-projects of ComDev PMC. Then we can have a policy requiring >>> a certain governance oversight over those sub-projects (like requiring >>> a certain # of PMC/members, etc.). >> >> This just feels like too much structure/bureaucracy to me. We want just >> enough oversight, but we don't want to kill it with too much, either. >> >> If, at some later date, this grows to the point where it seems to *need* >> this much oversight, then, great, we take that step then. >> >> Small, reversible steps. >> >> -- >> Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frcbowen.com%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C3ac2d86ccbf54019b11c08d77f500aba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637117854065911699sdata=vfHus%2BNTsFNCnmwIRFIJunUQ0Qoxv%2BsHBJb5Dsq74EY%3Dreserved=0 >> @rbowen >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
Hi - I’ve tracking only loosely this effort. I am very happy to see Swapnil’s effort and I can see this concept to be very helpful for real face to face community growth. That is really important as people are connected in the real world! > On Dec 12, 2019, at 9:18 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > > I've only been partially following, and I hear and respect the desire for > "quality control", but IMO, people talk about Apache all of the time in other > events. For example, when Flex joined the incubator in January 2012, there > was a Flex user conference shortly after in April 2012. I spoke there about > the transition from Adobe to Apache and laid out what I knew about Apache at > the time. I posted slides beforehand, but I'm not sure our Mentors looked > them over carefully. We were a podling, so no official PMC members and no > Mentors were in attendance. IIRC, I also practiced this presentation at a > small Meetup before the conference. I'll bet this happens at lots of > conferences for podlings. I included a disclaimer that I wasn't speaking on > behalf of Apache, just passing on what I've learned so far. Two points. (1) A Disclaimer is a good idea as is using existing material wherever it is found on Apache sites and projects. (2) I was a Flex Mentor. It was my first podling. I was a “junior mentor” and not yet a Member. I don’t recall the meeting being a big deal in any way for the mentors. > > Hence, my gentle suggestions that disclaiming is better than too much > oversight on these community meetings, otherwise ALC is going to be under a > heavier burden than other community outreach. If that's because you want to > make ALC the official way to learn about Apache, roughly as formal as the > Incubator, ok, then fine, but that might cause other volunteers to shy away > or find a path of less overhead by skipping the ALC title and buying a case > of beer instead. I think ALC is important. It can help with cross pollination between projects. It can help people find projects and projects find people. Again I haven’t looked, but to me the most important aspect should be disclosing scheduling and projects involved followed by some information about attendance. I think of an ALC as a meetup of meetups. Also, is the plan for Comdev to manage the ALCs, conferences, or a new committee? Or. Is this a combination? Regards, Dave > > My 2 cents, > -Alex > > On 12/12/19, 2:10 PM, "Craig Russell" wrote: > >Hi Swapnil, > >I realize I'm coming late to this discussion but would like to offer a > small bit of feedback. > >Like others, I think we need to try to get qualified people running local > groups. One Member plus two PMC members gives us three, which is a magic > number for decision-making here. Even if they don't attend all meetings, it's > at least some oversight from folks who have earned merit. > >Random talks that present how we do things here, by people we don't know, > makes me nervous. We might consider requiring presentations to be posted > publicly some time (one week?) before the meeting which would allow for at > least some oversight. > >And there are plenty of such presentations publicly available and some can > be edited to suit (e.g. see the Training podling for examples of > presentations on The Apache Way). > >I endorse the concept and look forward to a proposal. > >Craig > >> On Dec 11, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Swapnil M Mane wrote: >> >> Thank you so much, everyone, for your kind and valuable inputs. >> As a next step, we will work on drafting the ALC proposal to the board. >> >> >> - Best regards, >> Swapnil M Mane, >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.apache.orgdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C3ac2d86ccbf54019b11c08d77f500aba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637117854065911699sdata=NQimXPkKRHJo%2FpQ9yYjcnqVPJuVHumRLi6GYPVyQICE%3Dreserved=0 >> >>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:20 AM Rich Bowen wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/6/19 4:42 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: One potential (if not solution -- but at least a line of thought) could be to bring these efforts into the fold officially by requiring them to be official sub-projects of ComDev PMC. Then we can have a policy requiring a certain governance oversight over those sub-projects (like requiring a certain # of PMC/members, etc.). >>> >>> This just feels like too much structure/bureaucracy to me. We want just >>> enough oversight, but we don't want to kill it with too much, either. >>> >>> If, at some later date, this grows to the point where it seems to *need* >>> this much oversight, then, great, we take that step then. >>> >>> Small, reversible steps. >>> >>> -- >>> Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com >>>
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
I've only been partially following, and I hear and respect the desire for "quality control", but IMO, people talk about Apache all of the time in other events. For example, when Flex joined the incubator in January 2012, there was a Flex user conference shortly after in April 2012. I spoke there about the transition from Adobe to Apache and laid out what I knew about Apache at the time. I posted slides beforehand, but I'm not sure our Mentors looked them over carefully. We were a podling, so no official PMC members and no Mentors were in attendance. IIRC, I also practiced this presentation at a small Meetup before the conference. I'll bet this happens at lots of conferences for podlings. I included a disclaimer that I wasn't speaking on behalf of Apache, just passing on what I've learned so far. Hence, my gentle suggestions that disclaiming is better than too much oversight on these community meetings, otherwise ALC is going to be under a heavier burden than other community outreach. If that's because you want to make ALC the official way to learn about Apache, roughly as formal as the Incubator, ok, then fine, but that might cause other volunteers to shy away or find a path of less overhead by skipping the ALC title and buying a case of beer instead. My 2 cents, -Alex On 12/12/19, 2:10 PM, "Craig Russell" wrote: Hi Swapnil, I realize I'm coming late to this discussion but would like to offer a small bit of feedback. Like others, I think we need to try to get qualified people running local groups. One Member plus two PMC members gives us three, which is a magic number for decision-making here. Even if they don't attend all meetings, it's at least some oversight from folks who have earned merit. Random talks that present how we do things here, by people we don't know, makes me nervous. We might consider requiring presentations to be posted publicly some time (one week?) before the meeting which would allow for at least some oversight. And there are plenty of such presentations publicly available and some can be edited to suit (e.g. see the Training podling for examples of presentations on The Apache Way). I endorse the concept and look forward to a proposal. Craig > On Dec 11, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Swapnil M Mane wrote: > > Thank you so much, everyone, for your kind and valuable inputs. > As a next step, we will work on drafting the ALC proposal to the board. > > > - Best regards, > Swapnil M Mane, > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.apache.orgdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C3ac2d86ccbf54019b11c08d77f500aba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637117854065911699sdata=NQimXPkKRHJo%2FpQ9yYjcnqVPJuVHumRLi6GYPVyQICE%3Dreserved=0 > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:20 AM Rich Bowen wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/6/19 4:42 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >>> One potential (if not solution -- but at least a line of thought) could be >>> to bring these efforts into the fold officially by requiring them to be >>> official sub-projects of ComDev PMC. Then we can have a policy requiring >>> a certain governance oversight over those sub-projects (like requiring >>> a certain # of PMC/members, etc.). >> >> This just feels like too much structure/bureaucracy to me. We want just >> enough oversight, but we don't want to kill it with too much, either. >> >> If, at some later date, this grows to the point where it seems to *need* >> this much oversight, then, great, we take that step then. >> >> Small, reversible steps. >> >> -- >> Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frcbowen.com%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C3ac2d86ccbf54019b11c08d77f500aba%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637117854065911699sdata=vfHus%2BNTsFNCnmwIRFIJunUQ0Qoxv%2BsHBJb5Dsq74EY%3Dreserved=0 >> @rbowen >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > Craig L Russell c...@apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
Thank you so much Craig for your valuable feedback, all the details make perfect sense. We will incorporate all the respective details in the proposal. - Thanks & Regards, Swapnil M Mane, www.apache.org On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 at 3:40 AM, Craig Russell wrote: > Hi Swapnil, > > I realize I'm coming late to this discussion but would like to offer a > small bit of feedback. > > Like others, I think we need to try to get qualified people running local > groups. One Member plus two PMC members gives us three, which is a magic > number for decision-making here. Even if they don't attend all meetings, > it's at least some oversight from folks who have earned merit. > > Random talks that present how we do things here, by people we don't know, > makes me nervous. We might consider requiring presentations to be posted > publicly some time (one week?) before the meeting which would allow for at > least some oversight. > > And there are plenty of such presentations publicly available and some can > be edited to suit (e.g. see the Training podling for examples of > presentations on The Apache Way). > > I endorse the concept and look forward to a proposal. > > Craig > > > On Dec 11, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Swapnil M Mane > wrote: > > > > Thank you so much, everyone, for your kind and valuable inputs. > > As a next step, we will work on drafting the ALC proposal to the board. > > > > > > - Best regards, > > Swapnil M Mane, > > www.apache.org > > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:20 AM Rich Bowen wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 12/6/19 4:42 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > >>> One potential (if not solution -- but at least a line of thought) > could be > >>> to bring these efforts into the fold officially by requiring them to be > >>> official sub-projects of ComDev PMC. Then we can have a policy > requiring > >>> a certain governance oversight over those sub-projects (like requiring > >>> a certain # of PMC/members, etc.). > >> > >> This just feels like too much structure/bureaucracy to me. We want just > >> enough oversight, but we don't want to kill it with too much, either. > >> > >> If, at some later date, this grows to the point where it seems to *need* > >> this much oversight, then, great, we take that step then. > >> > >> Small, reversible steps. > >> > >> -- > >> Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com > >> http://rcbowen.com/ > >> @rbowen > >> > >> - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > >> > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > > > > Craig L Russell > c...@apache.org > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > > -- Best regards, Swapnil M Mane, www.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
Hi Swapnil, I realize I'm coming late to this discussion but would like to offer a small bit of feedback. Like others, I think we need to try to get qualified people running local groups. One Member plus two PMC members gives us three, which is a magic number for decision-making here. Even if they don't attend all meetings, it's at least some oversight from folks who have earned merit. Random talks that present how we do things here, by people we don't know, makes me nervous. We might consider requiring presentations to be posted publicly some time (one week?) before the meeting which would allow for at least some oversight. And there are plenty of such presentations publicly available and some can be edited to suit (e.g. see the Training podling for examples of presentations on The Apache Way). I endorse the concept and look forward to a proposal. Craig > On Dec 11, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Swapnil M Mane wrote: > > Thank you so much, everyone, for your kind and valuable inputs. > As a next step, we will work on drafting the ALC proposal to the board. > > > - Best regards, > Swapnil M Mane, > www.apache.org > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:20 AM Rich Bowen wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/6/19 4:42 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >>> One potential (if not solution -- but at least a line of thought) could be >>> to bring these efforts into the fold officially by requiring them to be >>> official sub-projects of ComDev PMC. Then we can have a policy requiring >>> a certain governance oversight over those sub-projects (like requiring >>> a certain # of PMC/members, etc.). >> >> This just feels like too much structure/bureaucracy to me. We want just >> enough oversight, but we don't want to kill it with too much, either. >> >> If, at some later date, this grows to the point where it seems to *need* >> this much oversight, then, great, we take that step then. >> >> Small, reversible steps. >> >> -- >> Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com >> http://rcbowen.com/ >> @rbowen >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > Craig L Russell c...@apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
Thank you so much, everyone, for your kind and valuable inputs. As a next step, we will work on drafting the ALC proposal to the board. - Best regards, Swapnil M Mane, www.apache.org On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:20 AM Rich Bowen wrote: > > > > On 12/6/19 4:42 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > One potential (if not solution -- but at least a line of thought) could be > > to bring these efforts into the fold officially by requiring them to be > > official sub-projects of ComDev PMC. Then we can have a policy requiring > > a certain governance oversight over those sub-projects (like requiring > > a certain # of PMC/members, etc.). > > This just feels like too much structure/bureaucracy to me. We want just > enough oversight, but we don't want to kill it with too much, either. > > If, at some later date, this grows to the point where it seems to *need* > this much oversight, then, great, we take that step then. > > Small, reversible steps. > > -- > Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com > http://rcbowen.com/ > @rbowen > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
On 12/6/19 4:42 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: One potential (if not solution -- but at least a line of thought) could be to bring these efforts into the fold officially by requiring them to be official sub-projects of ComDev PMC. Then we can have a policy requiring a certain governance oversight over those sub-projects (like requiring a certain # of PMC/members, etc.). This just feels like too much structure/bureaucracy to me. We want just enough oversight, but we don't want to kill it with too much, either. If, at some later date, this grows to the point where it seems to *need* this much oversight, then, great, we take that step then. Small, reversible steps. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com http://rcbowen.com/ @rbowen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
+1 I think Swapnil's done an amazing job documenting in confluence. Swapnil, could you write it up on-list (so the text that's being voted on is clear and won't be open for editing while the vote is happening)? If you'd like help, I'd be happy to work on any additional draft work that you might want to do. (For transparency's sake, I'm personally still not convinced that it's the right thing, but that doesn't mean that I'm not willing to follow the PMC and push it if this is what we decide we want as a community.) Best, Issac On 12/11/2019 4:58 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: I wonder if we have discussed this into the ground sufficiently to come up with a proposal that we can vote on and report to the board on? I think there's been great discussion, and that we have consensus on a number of things. And there are several local groups waiting for answers, as well as some that appear to have taken silence as endorsement. On 12/4/19 3:15 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: I've made two posts on this list in the past couple of days regarding the rising ACL effort and my concerns about it. I *desperately* want this kind of grass-roots enthusiast community effort. I do NOT want to kill it. But I've learned from Fedora user groups that allowing any random stranger to start up a group, using our Trademarks, to promote whatever message comes into their head, is *going* to bite us in the butt, sooner rather than later. This is *NOT* about the Indore group and their recent event. Rather it's about the future. The groups currently out there are full of experienced Apache people. All well and good. The second wave will be full of people wanting to promote their business, or their personal brand, using our name, and spreading misinformation about Apache under our official banner. We *cannot* allow this to happen. To do so would be a dereliction of our duty as a PMC. We must plan for the bad actors, even while enabling the good actors. I'm not entirely sure what I'm proposing, but I think that requiring, at this stage, at least one Member to be involved in the creation and mentoring of a new group, is a reasonable path. A brief discussion of these issues has occurred on the priv...@community.apache.org mailing list, where I was rightfully called out for having the conversation in private rather than in public. So, moving the conversation here, as is appropriate. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
Thanks Rich, I've not been tracking the discussion, but I have full confidence in the team here. I would be happy to provide a fresh set of eyes on a first draft of a proposal - trying to find the spaces that might raise objection that can thus be fleshed out ahead of time. Ross From: Rich Bowen Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 6:58 AM To: dev@community.apache.org Subject: Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache I wonder if we have discussed this into the ground sufficiently to come up with a proposal that we can vote on and report to the board on? I think there's been great discussion, and that we have consensus on a number of things. And there are several local groups waiting for answers, as well as some that appear to have taken silence as endorsement. On 12/4/19 3:15 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > I've made two posts on this list in the past couple of days regarding > the rising ACL effort and my concerns about it. > > I *desperately* want this kind of grass-roots enthusiast community > effort. I do NOT want to kill it. But I've learned from Fedora user > groups that allowing any random stranger to start up a group, using our > Trademarks, to promote whatever message comes into their head, is > *going* to bite us in the butt, sooner rather than later. > > This is *NOT* about the Indore group and their recent event. Rather it's > about the future. The groups currently out there are full of experienced > Apache people. All well and good. The second wave will be full of people > wanting to promote their business, or their personal brand, using our > name, and spreading misinformation about Apache under our official banner. > > We *cannot* allow this to happen. To do so would be a dereliction of our > duty as a PMC. We must plan for the bad actors, even while enabling the > good actors. > > I'm not entirely sure what I'm proposing, but I think that requiring, at > this stage, at least one Member to be involved in the creation and > mentoring of a new group, is a reasonable path. > > A brief discussion of these issues has occurred on the > priv...@community.apache.org mailing list, where I was rightfully called > out for having the conversation in private rather than in public. So, > moving the conversation here, as is appropriate. > -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com http://rcbowen.com/ @rbowen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
I wonder if we have discussed this into the ground sufficiently to come up with a proposal that we can vote on and report to the board on? I think there's been great discussion, and that we have consensus on a number of things. And there are several local groups waiting for answers, as well as some that appear to have taken silence as endorsement. On 12/4/19 3:15 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: I've made two posts on this list in the past couple of days regarding the rising ACL effort and my concerns about it. I *desperately* want this kind of grass-roots enthusiast community effort. I do NOT want to kill it. But I've learned from Fedora user groups that allowing any random stranger to start up a group, using our Trademarks, to promote whatever message comes into their head, is *going* to bite us in the butt, sooner rather than later. This is *NOT* about the Indore group and their recent event. Rather it's about the future. The groups currently out there are full of experienced Apache people. All well and good. The second wave will be full of people wanting to promote their business, or their personal brand, using our name, and spreading misinformation about Apache under our official banner. We *cannot* allow this to happen. To do so would be a dereliction of our duty as a PMC. We must plan for the bad actors, even while enabling the good actors. I'm not entirely sure what I'm proposing, but I think that requiring, at this stage, at least one Member to be involved in the creation and mentoring of a new group, is a reasonable path. A brief discussion of these issues has occurred on the priv...@community.apache.org mailing list, where I was rightfully called out for having the conversation in private rather than in public. So, moving the conversation here, as is appropriate. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com http://rcbowen.com/ @rbowen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
Awesome, thank you Daniel for sharing the exciting insights and updates. All the outreach ideas are great. Just sharing for information purposes, ALC Indore organized an event for students (like as you mentioned extra credit labs where students understand and contribute to a project) in September 2019. More details can be found at https://s.apache.org/The-Apache-Day-Sept-19 The response from the student community surprised us. By surpassing our expectations, 6 students made their first contribution to Apache projects (OFBiz and Roller). All the ideas you mentioned like lunch-and-learns, OSS awareness for faculties, and full-on evaluated course etc. are great. I have documented it (in raw format) in ALC space for reference purposes so that we don't miss this information in the future. https://s.apache.org/alc-outreach-roadmap-for-educational-institutes As we established some more ALCs, we will make a more *detailed execution plan* on these ideas. Thank you so much! Best regards, Swapnil M Mane, www.apache.org On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 4:04 AM Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > > On 12/9/2019 12:05 PM, Swapnil M Mane wrote: > > *Important* - Targeting university as a goal was just an example. > > Our goal as foundation could be anything and I am just saying > > these local ALC will help us in getting them executed is a more efficient > > and impactful way in the local region. > > Yes... AND - I'll also add that this is exactly the kind of outreach > that I think would be *outstanding* for us to do more "formally". > > The genesis of my own time as a teacher came from ApacheCon Austin (or > maybe Denver). We were sitting in the BarCamp talking about how to > improve the understanding of Open Source and an individual informed the > group that he had never heard of Open Source until well after he > graduated from University. This came as a shock to several of us. > > However... thinking back on my own naive understanding of Open Source > when I was in college, it occurred to me that it would be great to have > some sort of available to students, on their terms. Things such > as 1hr lunch-and-learns for an expert to just chat about their passion, > train-the-trainer sessions where an OSS evangelist arms faculty with > understandings, extra credit labs where students understand and > contribute to a project, and even a full-on evaluated course are ALL > valuable ways that a local chapter (or, yes, an informal user group) > could pay forward the gift of understanding to the next generation of > our industry. > > > I apologize for being a bit off topic, but if there is a way I can help > support this kind of outreach, I'm all in :-) > > -- > Daniel Ruggeri > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
Dear Issac, As I mentioned earlier, with the introduction of ALC, any existing things will not be affected, instead, it will open the doors for new great opportunities. My kind response to your concerns is already included in this mail thread and links shared above. We will surely have various positive impacts from the ALC activities. :-) Thank & Regards, Swapnil M Mane, www.apache.org On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:37 AM Issac Goldstand wrote: > > > On 12/9/2019 8:05 PM, Swapnil M Mane wrote: > > -- It will help build and expand communities. > > If we have multiple local meetups by different groups, > > there will not be a single place where Apache enthusiasts can meet. > > Through ALC we can unite them and it will strenghth our community > > reach at that local area. > I think that this is just a side-effect of the next points you mention, > so I'm not going to comment on it separately > > The real issue here is, an Apache enthusiast (or new individual > > interested in Apache) > > don't know which are the existing Apache community near them, > > whom they can contact and exchange their thoughts/ideas. > > So, to make this community searchable, we need to list them somewhere > > (like we did at https://s.apache.org/alc-chapters) > > This is a valid point, and a real convenience, but it's not an > impossible task. Google is certainly capable of doing a similar job on > whatever local meetup platform(s) might be popular in any region... > Plus, how would people even find out list? If I was looking for a > group, I'd search Google before starting to hunt down a list somewhere > under apache.org anyways. Searching Google for "apache meetup indore" > doesn't bring up the ALC, although it brings up other seemingly relevant > meetups or profiles. Searching for "apache indore" or "apache group > indore" don't bring up anything relevant. "apache community indore" is > a perfect match, but that took a bunch of trial and error on my end to > come up with the search query. Without my preexisting knowledge of > "Apache Local Community - Indore" as a name, I likely wouldn't have > stumbled on it. > > That leaves the question is it worth the onus of micro-managing the ALCs > and having all of the criteria needed to get, to use Rich's phrase, our > Official Seal of Approval just to have a single canonical list of > meetups hosted on *.apache.org? > > > Again, if we don't form these groups officially, > > we will be unable to form a single unified group in a town/city. > > Thus the ALC approach will unite our scattered strength at one place > > in a location. > > Why do we need a single unified group? On the contrary, the more the > merrier as long as each group is providing real value to its attendees > (and groups that don't provide real value tend to die on their own so no > need to worry about over-mutiplication of useless groups) > > > -- In the future, we can set a common goal for our local communities > > and execute it. > > Like for "e.g." if we decided as a foundation - for the next 3 months > > our goal is > > to increase the Apache awareness in local universities. > > So to execute this goal we can guide our ALCs > > to put the focused effort in Universities for the next three months > > and I am sure the commulative result of this effort will be amazing. > > This is an excellent point, but we can just as easily have a simple page > inviting anyone involved in a local Apache-related user-group to > subscribe to a mailing list (comdev? something new?) and get the word > out that way either with or without allowing discussion on the list. If > I had to flesh that out to a concrete idea, I'd say make some new > announce-style list, while keeping discussion here on comdev where they > belong. > > In short, I personally still don't see the value proposition for > formalizing at this point. There is value to what you're suggesting, > but IMHO the process overhead doesn't justify it. > >Issac > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
On 12/9/2019 8:05 PM, Swapnil M Mane wrote: -- It will help build and expand communities. If we have multiple local meetups by different groups, there will not be a single place where Apache enthusiasts can meet. Through ALC we can unite them and it will strenghth our community reach at that local area. I think that this is just a side-effect of the next points you mention, so I'm not going to comment on it separately The real issue here is, an Apache enthusiast (or new individual interested in Apache) don't know which are the existing Apache community near them, whom they can contact and exchange their thoughts/ideas. So, to make this community searchable, we need to list them somewhere (like we did at https://s.apache.org/alc-chapters) This is a valid point, and a real convenience, but it's not an impossible task. Google is certainly capable of doing a similar job on whatever local meetup platform(s) might be popular in any region... Plus, how would people even find out list? If I was looking for a group, I'd search Google before starting to hunt down a list somewhere under apache.org anyways. Searching Google for "apache meetup indore" doesn't bring up the ALC, although it brings up other seemingly relevant meetups or profiles. Searching for "apache indore" or "apache group indore" don't bring up anything relevant. "apache community indore" is a perfect match, but that took a bunch of trial and error on my end to come up with the search query. Without my preexisting knowledge of "Apache Local Community - Indore" as a name, I likely wouldn't have stumbled on it. That leaves the question is it worth the onus of micro-managing the ALCs and having all of the criteria needed to get, to use Rich's phrase, our Official Seal of Approval just to have a single canonical list of meetups hosted on *.apache.org? Again, if we don't form these groups officially, we will be unable to form a single unified group in a town/city. Thus the ALC approach will unite our scattered strength at one place in a location. Why do we need a single unified group? On the contrary, the more the merrier as long as each group is providing real value to its attendees (and groups that don't provide real value tend to die on their own so no need to worry about over-mutiplication of useless groups) -- In the future, we can set a common goal for our local communities and execute it. Like for "e.g." if we decided as a foundation - for the next 3 months our goal is to increase the Apache awareness in local universities. So to execute this goal we can guide our ALCs to put the focused effort in Universities for the next three months and I am sure the commulative result of this effort will be amazing. This is an excellent point, but we can just as easily have a simple page inviting anyone involved in a local Apache-related user-group to subscribe to a mailing list (comdev? something new?) and get the word out that way either with or without allowing discussion on the list. If I had to flesh that out to a concrete idea, I'd say make some new announce-style list, while keeping discussion here on comdev where they belong. In short, I personally still don't see the value proposition for formalizing at this point. There is value to what you're suggesting, but IMHO the process overhead doesn't justify it. Issac - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
On 12/9/2019 12:05 PM, Swapnil M Mane wrote: > *Important* - Targeting university as a goal was just an example. > Our goal as foundation could be anything and I am just saying > these local ALC will help us in getting them executed is a more efficient > and impactful way in the local region. Yes... AND - I'll also add that this is exactly the kind of outreach that I think would be *outstanding* for us to do more "formally". The genesis of my own time as a teacher came from ApacheCon Austin (or maybe Denver). We were sitting in the BarCamp talking about how to improve the understanding of Open Source and an individual informed the group that he had never heard of Open Source until well after he graduated from University. This came as a shock to several of us. However... thinking back on my own naive understanding of Open Source when I was in college, it occurred to me that it would be great to have some sort of available to students, on their terms. Things such as 1hr lunch-and-learns for an expert to just chat about their passion, train-the-trainer sessions where an OSS evangelist arms faculty with understandings, extra credit labs where students understand and contribute to a project, and even a full-on evaluated course are ALL valuable ways that a local chapter (or, yes, an informal user group) could pay forward the gift of understanding to the next generation of our industry. I apologize for being a bit off topic, but if there is a way I can help support this kind of outreach, I'm all in :-) -- Daniel Ruggeri
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
Thank you Issac and Eric for raising your concerns. Let me give a brief history from where the idea of forming official local community was initiated. Recently, I got the opportunity to explore the possibility of having roadshow in India. During this process, I faced many challenges in contacting the local Apache people and committers, these challenges and my previous experiences (with other communities and student community) gives birth to the idea of forming the Apache Local Community (ALC). Here is the mail thread for that discussion https://s.apache.org/ucfo4 So, here I would like to share with you the advantages of having official ALCs. -- It will open the doors for having frequent and small events for the local Open Source community. Currently, we have ApacheCon and Roadshows. The frequency and location of these events is limited. With ALC we can plan smaller events, like mini-roadshows and mini-ApacheCon type events but for this, it is very important to have the right messaging. To execute these events and having correct messaging, it becomes important to form an official local community with some guidelines. -- It will help build and expand communities. If we have multiple local meetups by different groups, there will not be a single place where Apache enthusiasts can meet. Through ALC we can unite them and it will strenghth our community reach at that local area. The real issue here is, an Apache enthusiast (or new individual interested in Apache) don't know which are the existing Apache community near them, whom they can contact and exchange their thoughts/ideas. So, to make this community searchable, we need to list them somewhere (like we did at https://s.apache.org/alc-chapters) Again, if we don't form these groups officially, we will be unable to form a single unified group in a town/city. Thus the ALC approach will unite our scattered strength at one place in a location. -- It will provide a platform for different project committers from the same town/city to meet and exchange knowledge, thoughts, and ideas. -- In the future, we can set a common goal for our local communities and execute it. Like for "e.g." if we decided as a foundation - for the next 3 months our goal is to increase the Apache awareness in local universities. So to execute this goal we can guide our ALCs to put the focused effort in Universities for the next three months and I am sure the commulative result of this effort will be amazing. *Important* - Targeting university as a goal was just an example. Our goal as foundation could be anything and I am just saying these local ALC will help us in getting them executed is a more efficient and impactful way in the local region. These are the some advantages of forming the official local community. Let me bring one more point here, (which I thought could be your concern). Trust me, the introduction of ALC will not affect anything which is going on currently. For e.g. if individual or group wants to execute an event/meetup independently, they can, nobody can/will stop them and actually, our foundation culture is such everyone will support :) But it will be just that, that event/meetup will not be officially by Apache. (Although, we can encourage them to join/form a local community but do they want to be part of ALC, or not, will always be their individual choice). So, with the introduction of ALC, any existing thing will not be affected, it will just open the doors for new great opportunities. Apologies, if I misunderstood anything, hope this information will be useful. Best regards, Swapnil M Mane, www.apache.org On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 7:51 PM Eric Covener wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 7:48 AM Issac Goldstand wrote: > > > > > > >> > > >> I've mentioned before that my standpoint is that it's impossible to > > >> properly police every fan driven event out there, and I seem to > > >> recall that use of a trademark by fans in a manner that isn't making > > >> profits is generally considered acceptable use. Is it not therefore > > >> a good-enoungh way to start by allowing (CTR instead of RTC as it were)? > > > > > > Absolutely. We don't even *want* to police every fan event. And we > > > want a LOT of fan events. The nuance is the moment we give our > > > Official Seal Of Approval to a group/event/organization, then we are > > > implicitly approving their message, and that's where we introduce > > > audience confusion. > > > > Why do we, as the ASF and/or as community.a.o want to give our Offic > > Seal of Approval to small events / meetups? > > > > To be clear, I'm *not* suggesting that we refuse to help. We can - > > should! - support groups that request it, but I'm asking why there's any > > de-facto expectation that there should be an Official Seal of Approval > > for small events / meetups. > > +1, It seems to me like the seal of approval route is riskier than > just treating them like any other usergroup or meetup. > >
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 7:48 AM Issac Goldstand wrote: > > > >> > >> I've mentioned before that my standpoint is that it's impossible to > >> properly police every fan driven event out there, and I seem to > >> recall that use of a trademark by fans in a manner that isn't making > >> profits is generally considered acceptable use. Is it not therefore > >> a good-enoungh way to start by allowing (CTR instead of RTC as it were)? > > > > Absolutely. We don't even *want* to police every fan event. And we > > want a LOT of fan events. The nuance is the moment we give our > > Official Seal Of Approval to a group/event/organization, then we are > > implicitly approving their message, and that's where we introduce > > audience confusion. > > Why do we, as the ASF and/or as community.a.o want to give our Offic > Seal of Approval to small events / meetups? > > To be clear, I'm *not* suggesting that we refuse to help. We can - > should! - support groups that request it, but I'm asking why there's any > de-facto expectation that there should be an Official Seal of Approval > for small events / meetups. +1, It seems to me like the seal of approval route is riskier than just treating them like any other usergroup or meetup. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
I've mentioned before that my standpoint is that it's impossible to properly police every fan driven event out there, and I seem to recall that use of a trademark by fans in a manner that isn't making profits is generally considered acceptable use. Is it not therefore a good-enoungh way to start by allowing (CTR instead of RTC as it were)? Absolutely. We don't even *want* to police every fan event. And we want a LOT of fan events. The nuance is the moment we give our Official Seal Of Approval to a group/event/organization, then we are implicitly approving their message, and that's where we introduce audience confusion. Why do we, as the ASF and/or as community.a.o want to give our Official Seal of Approval to small events / meetups? To be clear, I'm *not* suggesting that we refuse to help. We can - should! - support groups that request it, but I'm asking why there's any de-facto expectation that there should be an Official Seal of Approval for small events / meetups. Issac - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
I've NOT read this thread. It looks like there is constructive discussion
happening, unfortunately I don't have time to read it all just now, so I'll
refrain from commenting beyond encouraging work in this initiative.
I did want to raise that quite some time ago we did alot of work thinking about
how we might facilitate local ASF meetups. There is a whole load of materials
on the old ConCom wiki. I think some of the guidelines we developed may be
useful in planning this initiative, even though it has different goals.
Please accept my apologies for not finding a link for you. Also apologies if
this has been discussed already. I'm lazy and on a phone.
If nobody has it handy, I'll look it up after the weekend when back from my
current retreat from technology (starting in a few mins).
---
Sent from my phone, you know what that means - sorry
From: Swapnil M Mane
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 2:32:51 PM
To: Rich Bowen ; dev
Subject: Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
Thank you so much Rich for the kind words and expression, I highly
appreciate your constant guidance! :-)
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:13 PM Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> Some responses/thoughts inline. Thank you, Swapnil, for your
> constructive engagement in this conversation. I *hugely* appreciate you
> taking on this initiative, and your willingness to hear, and respond
> professionally to, criticism.
>
> On 12/5/19 12:31 AM, Swapnil M Mane wrote:
> > Thank you all for your constant support and guidance in the ALC [1]
> > initiative.
> >
> > Thank you so much Rich, Daniel, Issac, Shane, and David for spending
> > time and energy to share your
> > thoughts, we highly appreciate it. All the points you mentioned are
> > very important.
> >
> > Dear team,
> > I would like to discuss with you on three critical points (raised by
> > Rich), here is the reference to mail threads (
> > https://s.apache.org/6hfel , https://s.apache.org/wr6ah )
> >
> > 1. Process of forming ALC Chapter.
> > 2. How we make sure that we are not having people use the Apache name
> > to promote messages that are not *our* message.
> > 3. Rules and regulations for ALC Chapter.
> >
> > I am having some proposals to address these issues and need your kind
> > help in validating and improving it. All the below are just my
> > thoughts and I need your kind inputs and approval on this.
> >
> > ## 1. Process of forming ALC Chapter.
> >
> > Currently, we have process to establish an ALC is, simply send mail on
> > ComDev list as mentioned at https://s.apache.org/apply-to-setup-alc
> >
> > Should we add the following clauses to it?
> >
> > -- Instead of sending mail on dev@community.apache.org, the mail
> > should be sent to ComDev PMC at priv...@community.apache.org
> > -- To form an ALC, there should be at least 2 committers or 1 ASF member.
> > -- The ComDev PMC will look into each request and then took
> > the decision on forming the ALC Chapter.
> > -- Also as Rich suggests above, we can also assign one mentor to guide ALC.
> > (Thank you @Issac & @David for sharing your thoughts on this point).
>
> I kind of like the transparency of sending the request to the public
> list. We have already seen how this brings additional
> participants/attendees to light.
>
> I believe (and we might want to run this by the board for confirmation)
> that for the PMC to create a new entity, with rights to use the Apache
> name and trademarks, the PMC must actually vote on it, which should
> probably happen on the private list, as such a vote might contain
> personal remarks about the people starting the ALC in question ("I don't
> trust that Daniel guy, you know how he is!")
Makes perfect sense, thanks!
>
> I think, before we authorize any more of these groups, we should write a
> formal proposal of how we are planning to vet these groups, and send it
> to the board list. (Good news: most of the board members are here, so
> this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.)
Sure, thanks for raising this point, here is the
https://s.apache.org/establish-alc-chapter first draft.
(As mentioned in my previous mail, everyone please feel free to share
your inputs).
>
> My personal opinion is that we should require an ASF member to be
> involved, at least initially, and perhaps relax that when we revisit in,
> say, six months.
Very nice idea to revisiting it after six months, liked it!
Since many of the issues mentioned in the initial thread are almost getting
sorted. We are only having variable opinions on minimum count on ASF
or PMC members in ALC Chapter.
I tried to incorporate all the suggestions from everyone and prepared
https://s.apache.org/establish-alc-chapter document.
Please refer to my previous mail, https://s.apache.org/bvmwv from line
"Many of the issues mentioned"
(reshared again for everyone's quick reference)
>
> > ## 2. How we make sure that we are not having people use the Apache name
> > to promote messages that are not *our*
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
Thank you so much Rich for the kind words and expression, I highly
appreciate your constant guidance! :-)
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:13 PM Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> Some responses/thoughts inline. Thank you, Swapnil, for your
> constructive engagement in this conversation. I *hugely* appreciate you
> taking on this initiative, and your willingness to hear, and respond
> professionally to, criticism.
>
> On 12/5/19 12:31 AM, Swapnil M Mane wrote:
> > Thank you all for your constant support and guidance in the ALC [1]
> > initiative.
> >
> > Thank you so much Rich, Daniel, Issac, Shane, and David for spending
> > time and energy to share your
> > thoughts, we highly appreciate it. All the points you mentioned are
> > very important.
> >
> > Dear team,
> > I would like to discuss with you on three critical points (raised by
> > Rich), here is the reference to mail threads (
> > https://s.apache.org/6hfel , https://s.apache.org/wr6ah )
> >
> > 1. Process of forming ALC Chapter.
> > 2. How we make sure that we are not having people use the Apache name
> > to promote messages that are not *our* message.
> > 3. Rules and regulations for ALC Chapter.
> >
> > I am having some proposals to address these issues and need your kind
> > help in validating and improving it. All the below are just my
> > thoughts and I need your kind inputs and approval on this.
> >
> > ## 1. Process of forming ALC Chapter.
> >
> > Currently, we have process to establish an ALC is, simply send mail on
> > ComDev list as mentioned at https://s.apache.org/apply-to-setup-alc
> >
> > Should we add the following clauses to it?
> >
> > -- Instead of sending mail on dev@community.apache.org, the mail
> > should be sent to ComDev PMC at priv...@community.apache.org
> > -- To form an ALC, there should be at least 2 committers or 1 ASF member.
> > -- The ComDev PMC will look into each request and then took
> > the decision on forming the ALC Chapter.
> > -- Also as Rich suggests above, we can also assign one mentor to guide ALC.
> > (Thank you @Issac & @David for sharing your thoughts on this point).
>
> I kind of like the transparency of sending the request to the public
> list. We have already seen how this brings additional
> participants/attendees to light.
>
> I believe (and we might want to run this by the board for confirmation)
> that for the PMC to create a new entity, with rights to use the Apache
> name and trademarks, the PMC must actually vote on it, which should
> probably happen on the private list, as such a vote might contain
> personal remarks about the people starting the ALC in question ("I don't
> trust that Daniel guy, you know how he is!")
Makes perfect sense, thanks!
>
> I think, before we authorize any more of these groups, we should write a
> formal proposal of how we are planning to vet these groups, and send it
> to the board list. (Good news: most of the board members are here, so
> this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.)
Sure, thanks for raising this point, here is the
https://s.apache.org/establish-alc-chapter first draft.
(As mentioned in my previous mail, everyone please feel free to share
your inputs).
>
> My personal opinion is that we should require an ASF member to be
> involved, at least initially, and perhaps relax that when we revisit in,
> say, six months.
Very nice idea to revisiting it after six months, liked it!
Since many of the issues mentioned in the initial thread are almost getting
sorted. We are only having variable opinions on minimum count on ASF
or PMC members in ALC Chapter.
I tried to incorporate all the suggestions from everyone and prepared
https://s.apache.org/establish-alc-chapter document.
Please refer to my previous mail, https://s.apache.org/bvmwv from line
"Many of the issues mentioned"
(reshared again for everyone's quick reference)
>
> > ## 2. How we make sure that we are not having people use the Apache name
> > to promote messages that are not *our* message.
> >
> > *Very critical & important point!*
> > The ALC Indore [2] team was fortunate that we have 4 Committers, 2 PMC
> > members and the rest members are very active contributors to various
> > Apache Projects, so we feel the Apache within us.
> >
> > But it may/will not be the case with the new ALC Chapter, so here are
> > some solutions to address this issue.
> >
> > -- We worked on preparing some guidelines for ALC Chapter to execute
> > the event, https://s.apache.org/alc-guidelines
> > (I need your kind help in reviewing it.)
> > This could help us in keeping track of actions taken by ALC and
> > approving the event before executing it.
>
> This is all really great stuff. We should also coordinate with the
> Training project (incubating) with content that can be reused.
Super, our Training project is a nice option.
> >
> > @Daniel, this is exactly like you proposed, thoughts travel! :-)
> >
> > -- If we will have at least 2 committers of 1 ASF member than the
> > chances of misuse of our name will be
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
Thank you so much, Daniel for your kind words. I am grateful to you! :-) Kindly have look at my response inline. On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 6:23 PM Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > > > > On December 4, 2019 11:31:17 PM CST, Swapnil M Mane > wrote: > >Thank you all for your constant support and guidance in the ALC [1] > >initiative. > > > >Thank you so much Rich, Daniel, Issac, Shane, and David for spending > >time and energy to share your > >thoughts, we highly appreciate it. All the points you mentioned are > >very important. > > > >Dear team, > >I would like to discuss with you on three critical points (raised by > >Rich), here is the reference to mail threads ( > >https://s.apache.org/6hfel , https://s.apache.org/wr6ah ) > > I am delighted to see the constructive response to the concerns! > > > > >1. Process of forming ALC Chapter. > >2. How we make sure that we are not having people use the Apache name > >to promote messages that are not *our* message. > >3. Rules and regulations for ALC Chapter. > > > >I am having some proposals to address these issues and need your kind > >help in validating and improving it. All the below are just my > >thoughts and I need your kind inputs and approval on this. > > > >## 1. Process of forming ALC Chapter. > > > >Currently, we have process to establish an ALC is, simply send mail on > >ComDev list as mentioned at https://s.apache.org/apply-to-setup-alc > > > >Should we add the following clauses to it? > > I observe one thing missing from the document: WHO (a named individual or > role) is responsible for ensuring: > - The quarterly report is filed > - Pre-event materials are reviewed > - ComDev PMC knows to whom to reach out to for $reasons > > I ask this because volunteer time and energy comes and goes, so identifying > some/all of the responsible people for these things is important. This is > similar to a role in Conferences where each event (Roadshow/ApacheCon) has a > chair that bears the ultimate responsibility for the event. Of course, that > individual enlists the help of one or many additional partners to make the > event happen. > > Perfect catch! I will be glad to take the responsibility of the items you mentioned (if the community is fine with this :) Just a thought, we should define a role for this because in the future, we will grow, and if we have one specific individual for this work, we will have a dependency on that particular person. Instead, we should define a role, and as I said, I will be glad to take this role after the approval of the community. And in the future, if we feel someone other should take this responsibility and be in this role, it will be easy for us to have migration (like we sometimes do for project chair). [While writing this mail, received the mail from Roman https://s.apache.org/4218l on the official sub-project approach. I think this could help us in addressing the above-mentioned points.] For the pre-event materials review point, the person in X role (with the help ComDev PMC) can review and approve the pre-event materials. > > > >-- Instead of sending mail on dev@community.apache.org, the mail > >should be sent to ComDev PMC at priv...@community.apache.org > >-- To form an ALC, there should be at least 2 committers or 1 ASF > >member. > > I agree with Mark elsethread. IMO, this should follow the Roadshow > requirement of having at least one foundation member. Though, I differ a bit > in opinion... I don't think even having two PMC members from two separate > organizations is sufficient enough. Messaging is hard to get right and there > is often nuance required to identify bad actors seeking to be badder and good > actors making an honest error. > > Where I also agree is that I'm willing to consider case-by-case basis for an > ALC chapter that is mentored by a member. My reasoning here is that if ComDev > PMC has reviewed the content AND a member is involved a bit more through the > process, we likely have enough oversight to protect the Foundation while > enabling the energetic volunteers (who are likely on a path to membership > themselves!) > > So this doesn't appear to be a case of "seagull management", I volunteer to > mentor the first ALC proposal that lacks the member requirement. I want to > see this happen! > Thank you for the inspiring words! @Team, Many of the issues mentioned in the initial thread are almost getting sorted, only we all are having variable opinions on should ALC Chapter have alteast 1 ASF member or 2 PMC members or 2 Committers, etc. etc. I tried to incorporate all the suggestions and prepared https://s.apache.org/establish-alc-chapter document. (Please refer point 1.2 with additional notes) I like the idea of Rich, for now, we can make it mandatory to have at least 1 ASF member. And after six months (June 2020), we can re-evaluate it. I added this statement with *two clauses* (based on inputs from the community): # 1 If a proposed ALC Chapter is not having any ASF member on a
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 12:15 PM Rich Bowen wrote: > > I've made two posts on this list in the past couple of days regarding > the rising ACL effort and my concerns about it. > > I *desperately* want this kind of grass-roots enthusiast community > effort. I do NOT want to kill it. But I've learned from Fedora user > groups that allowing any random stranger to start up a group, using our > Trademarks, to promote whatever message comes into their head, is > *going* to bite us in the butt, sooner rather than later. > > This is *NOT* about the Indore group and their recent event. Rather it's > about the future. The groups currently out there are full of experienced > Apache people. All well and good. The second wave will be full of people > wanting to promote their business, or their personal brand, using our > name, and spreading misinformation about Apache under our official banner. > > We *cannot* allow this to happen. To do so would be a dereliction of our > duty as a PMC. We must plan for the bad actors, even while enabling the > good actors. > > I'm not entirely sure what I'm proposing, but I think that requiring, at > this stage, at least one Member to be involved in the creation and > mentoring of a new group, is a reasonable path. > > A brief discussion of these issues has occurred on the > priv...@community.apache.org mailing list, where I was rightfully called > out for having the conversation in private rather than in public. So, > moving the conversation here, as is appropriate. One potential (if not solution -- but at least a line of thought) could be to bring these efforts into the fold officially by requiring them to be official sub-projects of ComDev PMC. Then we can have a policy requiring a certain governance oversight over those sub-projects (like requiring a certain # of PMC/members, etc.). Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
Hello All: The issue seems to balance control against growth (along the lines Apache wants to foster). A way to do this would be to ensure there is a clear Apache entity, where the ideals and standards can be learned on these topics. As new issues arise, positions should be considered and defined in a timely manner, ordered by importance and this information should be easily accessible to those that are interested, so they can learn for themselves Apache's position on important topics. This doesn't take a lot of overhead, just clarity. Those that are sanctioned as "members" of Apache help define these ideals, and once published will be the stance AT THAT TIME of Apache. Apache can change its mind. Another important aspect of this is taking feedback from all-comers. It is valuable information for future improvement and adaption, allowing Apache to not become tone-def. An analogy of this would be, anyone can say anything about you they want, but if you are accessible and responsive, any position can be clarified easily by anyone interested. One does not have to chase down all the rumor-mongers and libelists. Anyone interested in investigating can find out for themselves exactly what Apache's stance is. On this particular topic, it is important for people to make a living, and understanding how participation in Apache can help or harm that is a really important subject. It is also germane to Apache's role in society and how it can optimize its effect. It is impossible to police everyone, but if Apache's stance can be easily clarified, then anyone can discern and execute for themselves, without central control, or a complex bureaucratic structure. The beauty of Apache, is it is an idea, so it is more easily defended than many other things. If the ideals are well-formed and clarified, then contribution and participation can be maximized even from those that are not "official" as well as allowing novel approaches and growth that I believe Apache would seem to foster. $0.02, Travis On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 09:19:05AM -0800, Austin Bennett wrote: > The bits on mentorship make some sense, although I am confused. If about > who is allowed/endorsed to speak on behalf of the ASF, then: > > * Should only speakers at events be of a condoned status (how are they > vetted)? > or: > * Would a required minimum number of mentors (PMC/Foundation members) be > required in attendance, to be able to correct mis-messages? > or more extreme: > * Should every piece of content be recorded and reviewed, and if > insufficient then the group should be discredited (that is extreme and > unlikely, but I think you see the example). > > ^ The first two perhaps are things that should then also be included in the > report of an event. > > Otherwise, it seems without the above invites much more bureaucracy without > actually doing much to solve/prevent the problem that seems to concern > people? > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:37 AM Rich Bowen wrote: > > > > > > > On 12/4/19 5:56 PM, Issac Goldstand wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 4, 2019 22:15, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > > > > > > > . But I've learned from Fedora user > > > groups that allowing any random stranger to start up a group, using > > our > > > Trademarks, to promote whatever message comes into their head, is > > > *going* to bite us in the butt, sooner rather than later. > > > > > > Are these from groups that are managed/overseen by RedHat? Can you share > > > more information about what you've learned the hard way? Because maybe > > > the way I suggest below is objectively wrong, and if so I'd rather > > > understand the faulty reasoning on my part sooner, rather than later... > > > > I'm reluctant to tell stories on a public list, particularly when almost > > all of the stories are third-hand. But the lesson learned is that when > > you give someone a title, there's a chance that they will take it as a > > fiefdom - a little kingdom where they rule, call the shots, and don't > > have to answer to anyone else. > > > > > > > > I've mentioned before that my standpoint is that it's impossible to > > > properly police every fan driven event out there, and I seem to recall > > > that use of a trademark by fans in a manner that isn't making profits is > > > generally considered acceptable use. Is it not therefore a good-enoungh > > > way to start by allowing (CTR instead of RTC as it were)? > > > > Absolutely. We don't even *want* to police every fan event. And we want > > a LOT of fan events. The nuance is the moment we give our Official Seal > > Of Approval to a group/event/organization, then we are implicitly > > approving their message, and that's where we introduce audience confusion. > > > > > > > > > > > This is *NOT* about the Indore group and their recent event. Rather > > > it's > > > about the future. The groups currently out there are full of > > > experienced > > > Apache people.
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
On 12/6/19 12:19 PM, Austin Bennett wrote: The bits on mentorship make some sense, although I am confused. If about who is allowed/endorsed to speak on behalf of the ASF, then: * Should only speakers at events be of a condoned status (how are they vetted)? No, I think that's overkill. Having someone involved in the running of the event, selecting content, makes it less likely that you'd run content that's "off message" but of course doesn't eliminate it. But it means that someone is involved who can stand up and say "that's not how it is" or: * Would a required minimum number of mentors (PMC/Foundation members) be required in attendance, to be able to correct mis-messages? Yeah, I think that's where we'd want it. or more extreme: * Should every piece of content be recorded and reviewed, and if insufficient then the group should be discredited (that is extreme and unlikely, but I think you see the example). While we'd *like* to have all content recorded, I don't think that's going to be a requirement. ^ The first two perhaps are things that should then also be included in the report of an event. Otherwise, it seems without the above invites much more bureaucracy without actually doing much to solve/prevent the problem that seems to concern people? Right. Like I said early on, I don't want to do things that will kill this amazing new surge of desire to do local events/groups/gatherings. Just to be sure that they are supervised by someone who knows when it's gone off the rails. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com http://rcbowen.com/ @rbowen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
And that's why I suggested required disclaimers. Big events have disclaimers. That way, Apache is not endorsing their message as 100% accurate on behalf of the foundation, just their attempt to get the message out. Sounds like Rich will make sure there is some ASF-experienced people involved, but I'm pretty sure there are ASF members who would say things that need correcting, so unless Rich can certify an ASF Members knowledge, it just lowers the risk by some amount and doesn't bring it to zero. So yeah, try to get as many experienced ASF people involved in the messaging from each ALC, to lower risk. Add a disclaimer to disengage responsibility for errors. Execute error recovery when needed. My 2 cents, -Alex On 12/6/19, 9:19 AM, "Austin Bennett" wrote: The bits on mentorship make some sense, although I am confused. If about who is allowed/endorsed to speak on behalf of the ASF, then: * Should only speakers at events be of a condoned status (how are they vetted)? or: * Would a required minimum number of mentors (PMC/Foundation members) be required in attendance, to be able to correct mis-messages? or more extreme: * Should every piece of content be recorded and reviewed, and if insufficient then the group should be discredited (that is extreme and unlikely, but I think you see the example). ^ The first two perhaps are things that should then also be included in the report of an event. Otherwise, it seems without the above invites much more bureaucracy without actually doing much to solve/prevent the problem that seems to concern people? On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:37 AM Rich Bowen wrote: > > > On 12/4/19 5:56 PM, Issac Goldstand wrote: > > > > On Dec 4, 2019 22:15, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > > > > . But I've learned from Fedora user > > groups that allowing any random stranger to start up a group, using > our > > Trademarks, to promote whatever message comes into their head, is > > *going* to bite us in the butt, sooner rather than later. > > > > Are these from groups that are managed/overseen by RedHat? Can you share > > more information about what you've learned the hard way? Because maybe > > the way I suggest below is objectively wrong, and if so I'd rather > > understand the faulty reasoning on my part sooner, rather than later... > > I'm reluctant to tell stories on a public list, particularly when almost > all of the stories are third-hand. But the lesson learned is that when > you give someone a title, there's a chance that they will take it as a > fiefdom - a little kingdom where they rule, call the shots, and don't > have to answer to anyone else. > > > > > I've mentioned before that my standpoint is that it's impossible to > > properly police every fan driven event out there, and I seem to recall > > that use of a trademark by fans in a manner that isn't making profits is > > generally considered acceptable use. Is it not therefore a good-enoungh > > way to start by allowing (CTR instead of RTC as it were)? > > Absolutely. We don't even *want* to police every fan event. And we want > a LOT of fan events. The nuance is the moment we give our Official Seal > Of Approval to a group/event/organization, then we are implicitly > approving their message, and that's where we introduce audience confusion. > > > > > > > This is *NOT* about the Indore group and their recent event. Rather > > it's > > about the future. The groups currently out there are full of > > experienced > > Apache people. All well and good. The second wave will be full of > > people > > wanting to promote their business, or their personal brand, using our > > name, and spreading misinformation about Apache under our official > > banner. > > > > Once there is enough traction in the user groups that we can see a clear > > difference between user (fan) groups that are promoting Apache vs groups > > that are using the name to promote themselves, we could go with the > > carrot and stick. The carrot is recognition and support by the ASF for > > the good players, and the stick is trademark abuse complaints and > > threats of legal action to those that don't. > > > > Or even just the stick. > > > > Because the carrot means having to make rules. And rules make life > > harder for volunteers. Pulling off a successful meetup/event and > > maintaining a successful community is hard enough without rules. > > Sometimes rules are unavoidable, and so be it, but let's keep the > > barrier of entry as low as possible for the amazing folks who are trying > > to raise positive awareness of what we do here. > > >
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
The bits on mentorship make some sense, although I am confused. If about who is allowed/endorsed to speak on behalf of the ASF, then: * Should only speakers at events be of a condoned status (how are they vetted)? or: * Would a required minimum number of mentors (PMC/Foundation members) be required in attendance, to be able to correct mis-messages? or more extreme: * Should every piece of content be recorded and reviewed, and if insufficient then the group should be discredited (that is extreme and unlikely, but I think you see the example). ^ The first two perhaps are things that should then also be included in the report of an event. Otherwise, it seems without the above invites much more bureaucracy without actually doing much to solve/prevent the problem that seems to concern people? On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:37 AM Rich Bowen wrote: > > > On 12/4/19 5:56 PM, Issac Goldstand wrote: > > > > On Dec 4, 2019 22:15, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > > > > . But I've learned from Fedora user > > groups that allowing any random stranger to start up a group, using > our > > Trademarks, to promote whatever message comes into their head, is > > *going* to bite us in the butt, sooner rather than later. > > > > Are these from groups that are managed/overseen by RedHat? Can you share > > more information about what you've learned the hard way? Because maybe > > the way I suggest below is objectively wrong, and if so I'd rather > > understand the faulty reasoning on my part sooner, rather than later... > > I'm reluctant to tell stories on a public list, particularly when almost > all of the stories are third-hand. But the lesson learned is that when > you give someone a title, there's a chance that they will take it as a > fiefdom - a little kingdom where they rule, call the shots, and don't > have to answer to anyone else. > > > > > I've mentioned before that my standpoint is that it's impossible to > > properly police every fan driven event out there, and I seem to recall > > that use of a trademark by fans in a manner that isn't making profits is > > generally considered acceptable use. Is it not therefore a good-enoungh > > way to start by allowing (CTR instead of RTC as it were)? > > Absolutely. We don't even *want* to police every fan event. And we want > a LOT of fan events. The nuance is the moment we give our Official Seal > Of Approval to a group/event/organization, then we are implicitly > approving their message, and that's where we introduce audience confusion. > > > > > > > This is *NOT* about the Indore group and their recent event. Rather > > it's > > about the future. The groups currently out there are full of > > experienced > > Apache people. All well and good. The second wave will be full of > > people > > wanting to promote their business, or their personal brand, using our > > name, and spreading misinformation about Apache under our official > > banner. > > > > Once there is enough traction in the user groups that we can see a clear > > difference between user (fan) groups that are promoting Apache vs groups > > that are using the name to promote themselves, we could go with the > > carrot and stick. The carrot is recognition and support by the ASF for > > the good players, and the stick is trademark abuse complaints and > > threats of legal action to those that don't. > > > > Or even just the stick. > > > > Because the carrot means having to make rules. And rules make life > > harder for volunteers. Pulling off a successful meetup/event and > > maintaining a successful community is hard enough without rules. > > Sometimes rules are unavoidable, and so be it, but let's keep the > > barrier of entry as low as possible for the amazing folks who are trying > > to raise positive awareness of what we do here. > > > > > > We *cannot* allow this to happen. To do so would be a dereliction of > > our > > duty as a PMC. We must plan for the bad actors, even while enabling > the > > good actors. > > > > Can we really expect to catch all the bad actors, long term? Especially > > since anyone can go to meetup.com, register The Official Apache > Software > > Foundation Meetup of Somecity, Somecountry, tack on the feather logo, > > and run with it with us none the wiser... Yes, we'd react swiftly and > > forcefully once we *did* catch on, but we can't stop it from happening. > > We can't monitor everything. > > No, we cannot expect to catch them all. But if, as I say above, give any > group our Official Seal Of Approval, and give them space on OUR website, > we are *explicitly* endorsing whatever they say. That's the line that > cannot be crossed. > > > > > We've gone 20 years without real traction in local small events that we > > are happy with. Suddenly in the past week I'm seeing more interest than > > we've had in years. Yes, we should have a plan for bad actors, but not > > at the cost of stifling potentially good ones. > > +1 > > >
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
On 12/4/19 5:56 PM, Issac Goldstand wrote: On Dec 4, 2019 22:15, Rich Bowen wrote: . But I've learned from Fedora user groups that allowing any random stranger to start up a group, using our Trademarks, to promote whatever message comes into their head, is *going* to bite us in the butt, sooner rather than later. Are these from groups that are managed/overseen by RedHat? Can you share more information about what you've learned the hard way? Because maybe the way I suggest below is objectively wrong, and if so I'd rather understand the faulty reasoning on my part sooner, rather than later... I'm reluctant to tell stories on a public list, particularly when almost all of the stories are third-hand. But the lesson learned is that when you give someone a title, there's a chance that they will take it as a fiefdom - a little kingdom where they rule, call the shots, and don't have to answer to anyone else. I've mentioned before that my standpoint is that it's impossible to properly police every fan driven event out there, and I seem to recall that use of a trademark by fans in a manner that isn't making profits is generally considered acceptable use. Is it not therefore a good-enoungh way to start by allowing (CTR instead of RTC as it were)? Absolutely. We don't even *want* to police every fan event. And we want a LOT of fan events. The nuance is the moment we give our Official Seal Of Approval to a group/event/organization, then we are implicitly approving their message, and that's where we introduce audience confusion. This is *NOT* about the Indore group and their recent event. Rather it's about the future. The groups currently out there are full of experienced Apache people. All well and good. The second wave will be full of people wanting to promote their business, or their personal brand, using our name, and spreading misinformation about Apache under our official banner. Once there is enough traction in the user groups that we can see a clear difference between user (fan) groups that are promoting Apache vs groups that are using the name to promote themselves, we could go with the carrot and stick. The carrot is recognition and support by the ASF for the good players, and the stick is trademark abuse complaints and threats of legal action to those that don't. Or even just the stick. Because the carrot means having to make rules. And rules make life harder for volunteers. Pulling off a successful meetup/event and maintaining a successful community is hard enough without rules. Sometimes rules are unavoidable, and so be it, but let's keep the barrier of entry as low as possible for the amazing folks who are trying to raise positive awareness of what we do here. We *cannot* allow this to happen. To do so would be a dereliction of our duty as a PMC. We must plan for the bad actors, even while enabling the good actors. Can we really expect to catch all the bad actors, long term? Especially since anyone can go to meetup.com, register The Official Apache Software Foundation Meetup of Somecity, Somecountry, tack on the feather logo, and run with it with us none the wiser... Yes, we'd react swiftly and forcefully once we *did* catch on, but we can't stop it from happening. We can't monitor everything. No, we cannot expect to catch them all. But if, as I say above, give any group our Official Seal Of Approval, and give them space on OUR website, we are *explicitly* endorsing whatever they say. That's the line that cannot be crossed. We've gone 20 years without real traction in local small events that we are happy with. Suddenly in the past week I'm seeing more interest than we've had in years. Yes, we should have a plan for bad actors, but not at the cost of stifling potentially good ones. +1 I'm not entirely sure what I'm proposing, but I think that requiring, at this stage, at least one Member to be involved in the creation and mentoring of a new group, is a reasonable path. Just remember that it will be only mentoring. Not every geographic location has a member (or even PMC member) that can supervise the content actually delivered there. Unlike the incubator where the mentors see everything happening in-code and on-list, for offline events in different languages and locations, the level of supervision needed to truly monitor the group is simply not scalable. I'd be willing to be such a mentor - given the above caveats - if comdev seems it helpful. I would think that geographically (or at least time-zone) close mentors would be preferred, but, yes, failing that, we definitely need others to step in. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com http://rcbowen.com/ @rbowen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
Some responses/thoughts inline. Thank you, Swapnil, for your
constructive engagement in this conversation. I *hugely* appreciate you
taking on this initiative, and your willingness to hear, and respond
professionally to, criticism.
On 12/5/19 12:31 AM, Swapnil M Mane wrote:
Thank you all for your constant support and guidance in the ALC [1] initiative.
Thank you so much Rich, Daniel, Issac, Shane, and David for spending
time and energy to share your
thoughts, we highly appreciate it. All the points you mentioned are
very important.
Dear team,
I would like to discuss with you on three critical points (raised by
Rich), here is the reference to mail threads (
https://s.apache.org/6hfel , https://s.apache.org/wr6ah )
1. Process of forming ALC Chapter.
2. How we make sure that we are not having people use the Apache name
to promote messages that are not *our* message.
3. Rules and regulations for ALC Chapter.
I am having some proposals to address these issues and need your kind
help in validating and improving it. All the below are just my
thoughts and I need your kind inputs and approval on this.
## 1. Process of forming ALC Chapter.
Currently, we have process to establish an ALC is, simply send mail on
ComDev list as mentioned at https://s.apache.org/apply-to-setup-alc
Should we add the following clauses to it?
-- Instead of sending mail on dev@community.apache.org, the mail
should be sent to ComDev PMC at priv...@community.apache.org
-- To form an ALC, there should be at least 2 committers or 1 ASF member.
-- The ComDev PMC will look into each request and then took
the decision on forming the ALC Chapter.
-- Also as Rich suggests above, we can also assign one mentor to guide ALC.
(Thank you @Issac & @David for sharing your thoughts on this point).
I kind of like the transparency of sending the request to the public
list. We have already seen how this brings additional
participants/attendees to light.
I believe (and we might want to run this by the board for confirmation)
that for the PMC to create a new entity, with rights to use the Apache
name and trademarks, the PMC must actually vote on it, which should
probably happen on the private list, as such a vote might contain
personal remarks about the people starting the ALC in question ("I don't
trust that Daniel guy, you know how he is!")
I think, before we authorize any more of these groups, we should write a
formal proposal of how we are planning to vet these groups, and send it
to the board list. (Good news: most of the board members are here, so
this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.)
My personal opinion is that we should require an ASF member to be
involved, at least initially, and perhaps relax that when we revisit in,
say, six months.
## 2. How we make sure that we are not having people use the Apache name
to promote messages that are not *our* message.
*Very critical & important point!*
The ALC Indore [2] team was fortunate that we have 4 Committers, 2 PMC
members and the rest members are very active contributors to various
Apache Projects, so we feel the Apache within us.
But it may/will not be the case with the new ALC Chapter, so here are
some solutions to address this issue.
-- We worked on preparing some guidelines for ALC Chapter to execute
the event, https://s.apache.org/alc-guidelines
(I need your kind help in reviewing it.)
This could help us in keeping track of actions taken by ALC and
approving the event before executing it.
This is all really great stuff. We should also coordinate with the
Training project (incubating) with content that can be reused.
@Daniel, this is exactly like you proposed, thoughts travel! :-)
-- If we will have at least 2 committers of 1 ASF member than the
chances of misuse of our name will be reduced.
I will echo a statement made elsewhere (may have even been another
list). We (ComDev) actively encourage project to hand out committer
rights very generously. As such, many committers are completely
unfamiliar with the larger Foundation. My vote (as a PMC member) is that
we require at least one ASF member, at least initially, as I have said
above.
-- We can make a list of the FAQs by the audience, and document it so
that every ALC chapter will have the answer to frequently asked
questions by the audience.
+1
-- We are documenting various information at
https://s.apache.org/ALC-Resources , this will also give the idea to
ALC Chapter what types of events and content they can present to the
audience.
All really good stuff.
## 3. Rule and regulation for ALC Chapter
Although we should not have a hard list of rules and regulation but we
should have some rules, that will help us in managing the ALC
initiative because with time we will grow like currently there is 900+
Google Developer Group [3] and 120+ Facebook Developer Circle [4]
present.
So, to manage and scale the ALC initiative, we should have some
rules/guidelines we prepared. Here are these
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
On 12/5/19 12:10 PM, Alex Harui wrote: From the peanut gallery: IMO, without a formal training/certification program, what even an ASF Member understands about the Apache Way, not to mention committers who are not members, is up for grabs. It is essentially the party game "telephone" where one person says something to another person who tries to pass it on. Also, it is humans speaking and humans listening, so misspeaking and misunderstanding is guaranteed. Seems like a better approach is along the lines of what the Events page Shane linked to contains. It contains a disclaimer for events. I thought we were supposed to also include a disclaimer in slide decks, but I couldn't find a reference to that. IOW, if you require a disclaimer that people speaking about Apache are just enthusiastic volunteers and not official spokespeople, and have them state how long they've been with involved at Apache as contributor/committer/member, then these community groups are the same as anyone else talking about the good things at Apache at some potluck dinner with friends. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate, it just has to get the word out in a reasonable fashion. And then you will get good at fixing common misunderstandings and create a FAQ of common misunderstandings to guide future presentations. "Oh, well that person is relatively new to the ASF and didn't quite grok that yet. The real story is" IMO, better to plan for error recovery than to attempt perfection in the message. https://media.tenor.com/images/d85d9f198d6b18d52267ef60314e7220/tenor.gif (Why not both?!) Yes, you are right. But there are limits to each approach. Having a member, or two PMC members, has have been variously suggested, mitigates the likelihood that we'll in error recovery mode continuously. I can look at the membership of the Indore ALC, for example, or the proposed Beijing one, and know with a high degree of certainty that they're not spreading misinformation. I want that same degree of certainty every time we hand out the Apache name to anyone and ask them to go spread the message. That's all I'm asking for here - a clear "you must be this tall to ride" before we approve any more of these proposed ALCs. This must be mixed with flexibility and mentorship for those parts of there world where there are no local members/PMC members/committers, since any proposed ALC from those regions represent a clear opportunity to expand our footprint into new places. This is also an obvious opportunity to coordinate with the Training project (incubating) to seed these ALCs with starter materials/presentations/FAQs. Yay inter-PMC cooperation. On 12/5/19, 7:53 AM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > On Dec 5, 2019, at 3:52 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: > > Picking up on one point > > On 05/12/2019 05:31, Swapnil M Mane wrote: > >> -- To form an ALC, there should be at least 2 committers or 1 ASF member. > > I don't agree with this. I don't think this is acceptable. The bar for > committership is too low to be used as a test for "Understands the > Apache Way". Maybe 2 PMC members...? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com http://rcbowen.com/ @rbowen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
From the peanut gallery: IMO, without a formal training/certification program, what even an ASF Member understands about the Apache Way, not to mention committers who are not members, is up for grabs. It is essentially the party game "telephone" where one person says something to another person who tries to pass it on. Also, it is humans speaking and humans listening, so misspeaking and misunderstanding is guaranteed. Seems like a better approach is along the lines of what the Events page Shane linked to contains. It contains a disclaimer for events. I thought we were supposed to also include a disclaimer in slide decks, but I couldn't find a reference to that. IOW, if you require a disclaimer that people speaking about Apache are just enthusiastic volunteers and not official spokespeople, and have them state how long they've been with involved at Apache as contributor/committer/member, then these community groups are the same as anyone else talking about the good things at Apache at some potluck dinner with friends. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate, it just has to get the word out in a reasonable fashion. And then you will get good at fixing common misunderstandings and create a FAQ of common misunderstandings to guide future presentations. "Oh, well that person is relatively new to the ASF and didn't quite grok that yet. The real story is" IMO, better to plan for error recovery than to attempt perfection in the message. -Alex On 12/5/19, 7:53 AM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > On Dec 5, 2019, at 3:52 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: > > Picking up on one point > > On 05/12/2019 05:31, Swapnil M Mane wrote: > >> -- To form an ALC, there should be at least 2 committers or 1 ASF member. > > I don't agree with this. I don't think this is acceptable. The bar for > committership is too low to be used as a test for "Understands the > Apache Way". Maybe 2 PMC members...?
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
> On Dec 5, 2019, at 3:52 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: > > Picking up on one point > > On 05/12/2019 05:31, Swapnil M Mane wrote: > >> -- To form an ALC, there should be at least 2 committers or 1 ASF member. > > I don't agree with this. I don't think this is acceptable. The bar for > committership is too low to be used as a test for "Understands the > Apache Way". Maybe 2 PMC members...?
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
On December 4, 2019 11:31:17 PM CST, Swapnil M Mane wrote: >Thank you all for your constant support and guidance in the ALC [1] >initiative. > >Thank you so much Rich, Daniel, Issac, Shane, and David for spending >time and energy to share your >thoughts, we highly appreciate it. All the points you mentioned are >very important. > >Dear team, >I would like to discuss with you on three critical points (raised by >Rich), here is the reference to mail threads ( >https://s.apache.org/6hfel , https://s.apache.org/wr6ah ) I am delighted to see the constructive response to the concerns! > >1. Process of forming ALC Chapter. >2. How we make sure that we are not having people use the Apache name >to promote messages that are not *our* message. >3. Rules and regulations for ALC Chapter. > >I am having some proposals to address these issues and need your kind >help in validating and improving it. All the below are just my >thoughts and I need your kind inputs and approval on this. > >## 1. Process of forming ALC Chapter. > >Currently, we have process to establish an ALC is, simply send mail on >ComDev list as mentioned at https://s.apache.org/apply-to-setup-alc > >Should we add the following clauses to it? I observe one thing missing from the document: WHO (a named individual or role) is responsible for ensuring: - The quarterly report is filed - Pre-event materials are reviewed - ComDev PMC knows to whom to reach out to for $reasons I ask this because volunteer time and energy comes and goes, so identifying some/all of the responsible people for these things is important. This is similar to a role in Conferences where each event (Roadshow/ApacheCon) has a chair that bears the ultimate responsibility for the event. Of course, that individual enlists the help of one or many additional partners to make the event happen. > >-- Instead of sending mail on dev@community.apache.org, the mail >should be sent to ComDev PMC at priv...@community.apache.org >-- To form an ALC, there should be at least 2 committers or 1 ASF >member. I agree with Mark elsethread. IMO, this should follow the Roadshow requirement of having at least one foundation member. Though, I differ a bit in opinion... I don't think even having two PMC members from two separate organizations is sufficient enough. Messaging is hard to get right and there is often nuance required to identify bad actors seeking to be badder and good actors making an honest error. Where I also agree is that I'm willing to consider case-by-case basis for an ALC chapter that is mentored by a member. My reasoning here is that if ComDev PMC has reviewed the content AND a member is involved a bit more through the process, we likely have enough oversight to protect the Foundation while enabling the energetic volunteers (who are likely on a path to membership themselves!) So this doesn't appear to be a case of "seagull management", I volunteer to mentor the first ALC proposal that lacks the member requirement. I want to see this happen! >-- The ComDev PMC will look into each request and then took >the decision on forming the ALC Chapter. >-- Also as Rich suggests above, we can also assign one mentor to guide >ALC. >(Thank you @Issac & @David for sharing your thoughts on this point). > > >## 2. How we make sure that we are not having people use the Apache >name >to promote messages that are not *our* message. > >*Very critical & important point!* >The ALC Indore [2] team was fortunate that we have 4 Committers, 2 PMC >members and the rest members are very active contributors to various >Apache Projects, so we feel the Apache within us. > >But it may/will not be the case with the new ALC Chapter, so here are >some solutions to address this issue. > >-- We worked on preparing some guidelines for ALC Chapter to execute >the event, https://s.apache.org/alc-guidelines >(I need your kind help in reviewing it.) >This could help us in keeping track of actions taken by ALC and >approving the event before executing it. > >@Daniel, this is exactly like you proposed, thoughts travel! :-) > >-- If we will have at least 2 committers of 1 ASF member than the >chances of misuse of our name will be reduced. > >-- We can make a list of the FAQs by the audience, and document it so >that every ALC chapter will have the answer to frequently asked >questions by the audience. > >-- We are documenting various information at >https://s.apache.org/ALC-Resources , this will also give the idea to >ALC Chapter what types of events and content they can present to the >audience. > >## 3. Rule and regulation for ALC Chapter > >Although we should not have a hard list of rules and regulation but we >should have some rules, that will help us in managing the ALC >initiative because with time we will grow like currently there is 900+ >Google Developer Group [3] and 120+ Facebook Developer Circle [4] >present. >So, to manage and scale the ALC initiative, we should have some >rules/guidelines we
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
Picking up on one point On 05/12/2019 05:31, Swapnil M Mane wrote: > -- To form an ALC, there should be at least 2 committers or 1 ASF member. I don't agree with this. I don't think this is acceptable. The bar for committership is too low to be used as a test for "Understands the Apache Way". To be clear, I'm fine with a low bar for committership. The lower the better. I'm not fine with the same low bar for "Officially representing the ASF." Perhaps mentorship (discussed else-thread) could address this but I'd suggest, based on the existing event policy [1] making this at least 2 PMC members from different projects associated with at least two different organizations. We can always be flexible on a case by case basis. Mark [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/events.html#selection > -- The ComDev PMC will look into each request and then took > the decision on forming the ALC Chapter. > -- Also as Rich suggests above, we can also assign one mentor to guide ALC. > (Thank you @Issac & @David for sharing your thoughts on this point). > > > ## 2. How we make sure that we are not having people use the Apache name > to promote messages that are not *our* message. > > *Very critical & important point!* > The ALC Indore [2] team was fortunate that we have 4 Committers, 2 PMC > members and the rest members are very active contributors to various > Apache Projects, so we feel the Apache within us. > > But it may/will not be the case with the new ALC Chapter, so here are > some solutions to address this issue. > > -- We worked on preparing some guidelines for ALC Chapter to execute > the event, https://s.apache.org/alc-guidelines > (I need your kind help in reviewing it.) > This could help us in keeping track of actions taken by ALC and > approving the event before executing it. > > @Daniel, this is exactly like you proposed, thoughts travel! :-) > > -- If we will have at least 2 committers of 1 ASF member than the > chances of misuse of our name will be reduced. > > -- We can make a list of the FAQs by the audience, and document it so > that every ALC chapter will have the answer to frequently asked > questions by the audience. > > -- We are documenting various information at > https://s.apache.org/ALC-Resources , this will also give the idea to > ALC Chapter what types of events and content they can present to the > audience. > > ## 3. Rule and regulation for ALC Chapter > > Although we should not have a hard list of rules and regulation but we > should have some rules, that will help us in managing the ALC > initiative because with time we will grow like currently there is 900+ > Google Developer Group [3] and 120+ Facebook Developer Circle [4] > present. > So, to manage and scale the ALC initiative, we should have some > rules/guidelines we prepared. Here are these rules/guidelines. > > -- There will be a single ALC chapter per town/city. > > -- The ALC members should follow the Apache code of conduct, > https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html > > -- It’s strictly prohibited to use ALC Chapter for profit or promoting > any company or personal agenda. > > -- If any ALC Chapter is inactive for 3 months, it will be dissolved > after communication with members of that ALC chapter because we are > having strictly one ALC chapter in a town/city. > > -- The ALC Chapter shares the status report (e.g. ALC Indore reports - > https://s.apache.org/alc-indore-reports) to ComDev in every three > months. > The report includes details on the activities performed by ALC Chapter > and it's impact. > Here is the index page for reports from each ALC > https://s.apache.org/alc-reports > And the report prepared by ALC Indore for their > August to October 2019 activities is > https://s.apache.org/alc-indore-report-aug-oct-2019 > > -- Each Chapter should follow ALC Guideline (as mentioned, need your > help in reviewing it) https://s.apache.org/alc-guidelines to execute > any event. > > -- Also as @Shane mentioned, we can also use some of the concepts and > rationale mentioned at > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/events > (Below is the statement from our Event Branding Policy we have already > included as suggested by from Joan previously) > === > The use of Apache marks in any events run by third parties must be > approved by VP, Brand Management or the VP of the relevant Apache > project > === > Shane, this point was raised by Joan Touzet in September > https://s.apache.org/95wu0 , so we had a discussion on this and > followed this process and included it in > https://s.apache.org/alc-guidelines > As you said, if needed we can add more points from > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/events > > > I feel very proud to be the part of the Apache family and in the past 6 > years every day, the ASF people inspired me to do better. And the > great things we are doing together surprise me regularly. > Thank you much for your love and support! > > Please feel free to share
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
Thank you all for your constant support and guidance in the ALC [1] initiative. Thank you so much Rich, Daniel, Issac, Shane, and David for spending time and energy to share your thoughts, we highly appreciate it. All the points you mentioned are very important. Dear team, I would like to discuss with you on three critical points (raised by Rich), here is the reference to mail threads ( https://s.apache.org/6hfel , https://s.apache.org/wr6ah ) 1. Process of forming ALC Chapter. 2. How we make sure that we are not having people use the Apache name to promote messages that are not *our* message. 3. Rules and regulations for ALC Chapter. I am having some proposals to address these issues and need your kind help in validating and improving it. All the below are just my thoughts and I need your kind inputs and approval on this. ## 1. Process of forming ALC Chapter. Currently, we have process to establish an ALC is, simply send mail on ComDev list as mentioned at https://s.apache.org/apply-to-setup-alc Should we add the following clauses to it? -- Instead of sending mail on dev@community.apache.org, the mail should be sent to ComDev PMC at priv...@community.apache.org -- To form an ALC, there should be at least 2 committers or 1 ASF member. -- The ComDev PMC will look into each request and then took the decision on forming the ALC Chapter. -- Also as Rich suggests above, we can also assign one mentor to guide ALC. (Thank you @Issac & @David for sharing your thoughts on this point). ## 2. How we make sure that we are not having people use the Apache name to promote messages that are not *our* message. *Very critical & important point!* The ALC Indore [2] team was fortunate that we have 4 Committers, 2 PMC members and the rest members are very active contributors to various Apache Projects, so we feel the Apache within us. But it may/will not be the case with the new ALC Chapter, so here are some solutions to address this issue. -- We worked on preparing some guidelines for ALC Chapter to execute the event, https://s.apache.org/alc-guidelines (I need your kind help in reviewing it.) This could help us in keeping track of actions taken by ALC and approving the event before executing it. @Daniel, this is exactly like you proposed, thoughts travel! :-) -- If we will have at least 2 committers of 1 ASF member than the chances of misuse of our name will be reduced. -- We can make a list of the FAQs by the audience, and document it so that every ALC chapter will have the answer to frequently asked questions by the audience. -- We are documenting various information at https://s.apache.org/ALC-Resources , this will also give the idea to ALC Chapter what types of events and content they can present to the audience. ## 3. Rule and regulation for ALC Chapter Although we should not have a hard list of rules and regulation but we should have some rules, that will help us in managing the ALC initiative because with time we will grow like currently there is 900+ Google Developer Group [3] and 120+ Facebook Developer Circle [4] present. So, to manage and scale the ALC initiative, we should have some rules/guidelines we prepared. Here are these rules/guidelines. -- There will be a single ALC chapter per town/city. -- The ALC members should follow the Apache code of conduct, https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html -- It’s strictly prohibited to use ALC Chapter for profit or promoting any company or personal agenda. -- If any ALC Chapter is inactive for 3 months, it will be dissolved after communication with members of that ALC chapter because we are having strictly one ALC chapter in a town/city. -- The ALC Chapter shares the status report (e.g. ALC Indore reports - https://s.apache.org/alc-indore-reports) to ComDev in every three months. The report includes details on the activities performed by ALC Chapter and it's impact. Here is the index page for reports from each ALC https://s.apache.org/alc-reports And the report prepared by ALC Indore for their August to October 2019 activities is https://s.apache.org/alc-indore-report-aug-oct-2019 -- Each Chapter should follow ALC Guideline (as mentioned, need your help in reviewing it) https://s.apache.org/alc-guidelines to execute any event. -- Also as @Shane mentioned, we can also use some of the concepts and rationale mentioned at https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/events (Below is the statement from our Event Branding Policy we have already included as suggested by from Joan previously) === The use of Apache marks in any events run by third parties must be approved by VP, Brand Management or the VP of the relevant Apache project === Shane, this point was raised by Joan Touzet in September https://s.apache.org/95wu0 , so we had a discussion on this and followed this process and included it in https://s.apache.org/alc-guidelines As you said, if needed we can add more points from https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/events I
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 3:15 PM Rich Bowen wrote: > > I've made two posts on this list in the past couple of days regarding > the rising ACL effort and my concerns about it. > > I *desperately* want this kind of grass-roots enthusiast community > effort. I do NOT want to kill it. But I've learned from Fedora user > groups that allowing any random stranger to start up a group, using our > Trademarks, to promote whatever message comes into their head, is > *going* to bite us in the butt, sooner rather than later. > I haven't been involved with Fedora in a long while, but there were in early days a real struggle for how to control messaging and who could speak for Fedora, and how events could be handled, etc. Did the community own it or did Red Hat? Fedora had (at least back then) a relatively scalable and self-policing group called the "Ambassadors" that leveraged messaging and collateral provided by the Fedora Marketing Project to talk about Fedora in a unified fashion. There were requirements about prior activity and some barrier to entry to become an Ambassador, but it belonging to that group seems somewhat analogous to membership at the ASF (you had to have been involved in some other aspect of Fedora, you had to demonstrate some knowledge of Fedora's principles, etc) So perhaps being 'sponsored' or 'championed' by a member is the threshold for running an event. Any problems that arise can be policed from there because we know there's a member we can talk to. YMMV - I have no idea the current state of the Ambassador program at Fedora and whether it's considered a success of failure. --David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
Rich Bowen wrote on 2019-12-4 3:15PM EST: > I've made two posts on this list in the past couple of days regarding > the rising ACL effort and my concerns about it. > > I *desperately* want this kind of grass-roots enthusiast community > effort. I do NOT want to kill it. But I've learned from Fedora user > groups that allowing any random stranger to start up a group, using our > Trademarks, to promote whatever message comes into their head, is > *going* to bite us in the butt, sooner rather than later. ...snip... Thanks for raising this up as the general question Rich, and yes, I agree with you. We've certainly had our trademarks abused in the past, sometimes even by well-meaning groups that changed direction later, so we absolutely need some sort of oversight here. One place to start are existing trademark policies. The events policy covers all events using Apache trademarks, so start there: https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/events While that is primarily written for larger events, the concepts and rationale apply to smaller events, meetups, and things like the ALC concept as well. So starting with that policy, and then suggesting specific suggestions for recurring but larger meetups like ALC would be helpful. Separately, I'd suggest that people read the rationale in our Domain Name Policy - while it's about domain names, the rationale explains important concepts about how and why the ASF needs to control use of our trademarks. https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/domains#rationale -- - Shane Director & Member The Apache Software Foundation - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
On Dec 4, 2019 22:15, Rich Bowen wrote: . But I've learned from Fedora user groups that allowing any random stranger to start up a group, using our Trademarks, to promote whatever message comes into their head, is *going* to bite us in the butt, sooner rather than later. Are these from groups that are managed/overseen by RedHat? Can you share more information about what you've learned the hard way? Because maybe the way I suggest below is objectively wrong, and if so I'd rather understand the faulty reasoning on my part sooner, rather than later... I've mentioned before that my standpoint is that it's impossible to properly police every fan driven event out there, and I seem to recall that use of a trademark by fans in a manner that isn't making profits is generally considered acceptable use. Is it not therefore a good-enoungh way to start by allowing (CTR instead of RTC as it were)? This is *NOT* about the Indore group and their recent event. Rather it's about the future. The groups currently out there are full of experienced Apache people. All well and good. The second wave will be full of people wanting to promote their business, or their personal brand, using our name, and spreading misinformation about Apache under our official banner. Once there is enough traction in the user groups that we can see a clear difference between user (fan) groups that are promoting Apache vs groups that are using the name to promote themselves, we could go with the carrot and stick. The carrot is recognition and support by the ASF for the good players, and the stick is trademark abuse complaints and threats of legal action to those that don't. Or even just the stick. Because the carrot means having to make rules. And rules make life harder for volunteers. Pulling off a successful meetup/event and maintaining a successful community is hard enough without rules. Sometimes rules are unavoidable, and so be it, but let's keep the barrier of entry as low as possible for the amazing folks who are trying to raise positive awareness of what we do here. We *cannot* allow this to happen. To do so would be a dereliction of our duty as a PMC. We must plan for the bad actors, even while enabling the good actors. Can we really expect to catch all the bad actors, long term? Especially since anyone can go to meetup.com, register The Official Apache Software Foundation Meetup of Somecity, Somecountry, tack on the feather logo, and run with it with us none the wiser... Yes, we'd react swiftly and forcefully once we *did* catch on, but we can't stop it from happening. We can't monitor everything. We've gone 20 years without real traction in local small events that we are happy with. Suddenly in the past week I'm seeing more interest than we've had in years. Yes, we should have a plan for bad actors, but not at the cost of stifling potentially good ones. I'm not entirely sure what I'm proposing, but I think that requiring, at this stage, at least one Member to be involved in the creation and mentoring of a new group, is a reasonable path. Just remember that it will be only mentoring. Not every geographic location has a member (or even PMC member) that can supervise the content actually delivered there. Unlike the incubator where the mentors see everything happening in-code and on-list, for offline events in different languages and locations, the level of supervision needed to truly monitor the group is simply not scalable. I'd be willing to be such a mentor - given the above caveats - if comdev seems it helpful. Issac
Re: ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
I would suggest adding some sort of required pre-approval of the overall content at the ALC meetings, by active consent (not lazy consensus). - Is it going to be about the Apache Way and Open Source? - It is going to be solely "I wanna sell you this!"? - Are there experienced people present from the Apache community? - etc etc The idea here being we get some sort of abridged layout of what's going to happen and can help steer clear of the various usual pitfalls. I'd also expect some sort of write-up afterwards on what happened. On 04/12/2019 21.15, Rich Bowen wrote: I've made two posts on this list in the past couple of days regarding the rising ACL effort and my concerns about it. I *desperately* want this kind of grass-roots enthusiast community effort. I do NOT want to kill it. But I've learned from Fedora user groups that allowing any random stranger to start up a group, using our Trademarks, to promote whatever message comes into their head, is *going* to bite us in the butt, sooner rather than later. This is *NOT* about the Indore group and their recent event. Rather it's about the future. The groups currently out there are full of experienced Apache people. All well and good. The second wave will be full of people wanting to promote their business, or their personal brand, using our name, and spreading misinformation about Apache under our official banner. We *cannot* allow this to happen. To do so would be a dereliction of our duty as a PMC. We must plan for the bad actors, even while enabling the good actors. I'm not entirely sure what I'm proposing, but I think that requiring, at this stage, at least one Member to be involved in the creation and mentoring of a new group, is a reasonable path. A brief discussion of these issues has occurred on the priv...@community.apache.org mailing list, where I was rightfully called out for having the conversation in private rather than in public. So, moving the conversation here, as is appropriate. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
ALC, and who can speak on behalf of Apache
I've made two posts on this list in the past couple of days regarding the rising ACL effort and my concerns about it. I *desperately* want this kind of grass-roots enthusiast community effort. I do NOT want to kill it. But I've learned from Fedora user groups that allowing any random stranger to start up a group, using our Trademarks, to promote whatever message comes into their head, is *going* to bite us in the butt, sooner rather than later. This is *NOT* about the Indore group and their recent event. Rather it's about the future. The groups currently out there are full of experienced Apache people. All well and good. The second wave will be full of people wanting to promote their business, or their personal brand, using our name, and spreading misinformation about Apache under our official banner. We *cannot* allow this to happen. To do so would be a dereliction of our duty as a PMC. We must plan for the bad actors, even while enabling the good actors. I'm not entirely sure what I'm proposing, but I think that requiring, at this stage, at least one Member to be involved in the creation and mentoring of a new group, is a reasonable path. A brief discussion of these issues has occurred on the priv...@community.apache.org mailing list, where I was rightfully called out for having the conversation in private rather than in public. So, moving the conversation here, as is appropriate. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com http://rcbowen.com/ @rbowen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
