The Agenda is public and everyone will contribute to it. Anyone can attend the meeting. Anyone can propose an alternate time. How is it private ?
What else do you suggest ? > On Jan 11, 2020, at 9:31 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> > wrote: > > I think everyone is missing my point, and the reason for it. I am super > focused on not repeating the situation that happened before. So I am super > keen that everyone is focused on doing everything as properly as possible. > Telling the community: we've privately decided this important community thing > is happening on this date, and we will tell you when we have published an > agenda, is the wrong way to do it. > > Private meetings like this are fine. Afterwards somebody can send an email > to the list saying "we've talked and we think it would be nice to have a > meeting on 22nd of January, and we're hoping to propose an agenda a week in > advance so the community can discuss it - does that sound good to everyone?" > > The difference is subtle, and yet not subtle. Probably it will receive > little to no interesting response and your proposal will be endorsed. But > you have to do it, because that's how the decision is made. I'm not sure why > this is controversial - you all know this is true, I'm certain of it. > > People keep forgetting. I'm just going to sit here and keep reminding you, > so that this email thread is hopefully the worst we have to deal with. > > > > On 11/01/2020, 17:07, "sankalp kohli" <kohlisank...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Here is the mail thread where we discussed this. It also has agreement that > we will discuss things on mailing list and no decision till it happens on > mailing list. Hope this clears things up when you read the thread. > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/aa54420a43671c00392978f2b0920bc6926ca9ba1e61a486ad39fb21%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E > >> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 3:16 AM Benedict Elliott Smith >> <bened...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> I recall this being discussed at ApacheCon, and I recall the idea seemed >> very much for a semi-formal regular project meeting, in which project >> business would be discussed on a pre-agreed agenda. Some ground rules were >> even suggested at ApacheCon, such as ensuring the meetings occur in >> rotating timezones, that the agenda is proposed and voted upon on-list in >> advance, etc. >> >> Nothing is a decision until it happens on-list, and in this case the date, >> time, agenda and process should be a proposal, not something that is >> predetermined. >> >> A great comparison is the CEP proposal, which was discussed at ApacheCon, >> brought on-list, codified, modified and voted on. >> >> It's very easy for people who have resources at their disposal to start to >> behave as though they have decision-making power, because usually things >> happen in the way that they propose. This happens even with the best of >> intentions, and I have never once implied or suspected bad intentions. >> >> >> >> >> On 11/01/2020, 04:24, "Jeff Jirsa" <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> This will be rambling as I’m typing on my phone while watching The >> Office and I’m not going to proofread, but: >> >> PMC votes on releases, and code policies, and trademarks, and things >> of that nature. While the link suggests PMCs *can* sponsor meetings, >> nothing should preclude anyone from meeting to talk about the database - >> there are countless cassandra meetups around and we never try to police >> those (and we shouldn’t start), as long as they’re not pretending to be >> speaking on behalf of the project. >> >> A couple non-committer contributors deciding to hop on a video call >> and encourage other contributors to attend seems both harmless to the >> project and something that can help build awareness and bring attention to >> some of the otherwise invisible work that’s happening. >> >> It’s not on behalf of the project PMC, this thread has made that >> clear, but I think there’s value here, even if anything discussed or >> proposed on any hypothetical call has no standing and wouldn’t represent >> the PMC or the project. Having folks who care about the database talk about >> the community, even if they’re not committers, doesn’t seem all that >> damaging to me, as long as they’re not violating trademark to promote it or >> somehow misrepresenting the nature of the call. >> >> I get the concern about implicit control of the project and how that >> can devolve over time despite good intentions. >> >> As with the long threads in 2015/2016, I think we should be sure not >> to overreact out of fear, and should assume good intent. >> >> Given the concern, I also think folks trying to build community should >> make a point of over communicating to the dev list. >> >> Hugs and kisses friends, >> - Jeff >> >> >> >>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 6:05 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith < >> bened...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> To be clear, as it seems like I'm being very negative here, I'm >> really pleased to see DataStax suddenly increase their participation, even >> if currently it's limited to administrative activities. But let's try >> really hard to do things in the right way. >>> >>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html#meetings >>> >>> Community and meetings are explicitly within the intended purview of >> the PMC. The Cassandra PMC ordinarily implicitly devolves decision-making >> to the dev list, so a lack of formal role is no impediment to participation >> _here on the devlist_ but making decisions off-list amongst a cohort >> lacking _any_ formal members of the community is a particularly bad look >> IMO, and the kind of indifference to "The Apache Way" that lead to the >> fallout with DataStax many moons ago. >>> >>> In this case, Patrick said "we've decided we're running a >> contributor meeting on this date" which starts to look like an attempt - >> however unintentional - to make decisions about community and collaboration >> _for_ the project. >>> >>> Instead, IMO, presenting a clear proposal to the community about how >> this could happen, giving it due time to respond and consider (and probably >> mostly express gratitude!) is the right way to do it. It might lead to >> tweaks, it might lead to minor preconditions about process, it might lead >> to nothing. But that's how these kinds of things should happen, even >> ignoring the ASF stuff, if only out of politeness. >>> >>> >>> On 11/01/2020, 01:52, "J. D. Jordan" <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Isn’t doing such things the way people who are not writing code >> become part of a project? By offering their time to do things that benefit >> the project? >>> >>> Why does anyone “with a formal role” need to agree that Patrick is >> allowed to use his time to try and get some people together to discuss >> contributing? >>> >>> -Jeremiah Jordan >>> Person with no formal role in the Apache Cassandra project. >>> >>>>>> On Jan 10, 2020, at 7:44 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith < >> bened...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> This is also great. But it's a bit of a weird look to have two >> people, neither of whom have formal roles on the project, making decisions >> like this without the involvement of the community. I'm sure everyone will >> be supportive, but it would help to democratise the decision-making. >>>> On 11/01/2020, 01:39, "Patrick McFadin" <pmcfa...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>> Scott and I had a talk this week and we are starting the contributor >>>> meetings on 1/22 as we talked about at NGCC. (Yeah that was back in >>>> September) Stay tuned for the details and agenda in the project >> confluence >>>> page. >>>> Patrick >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:21 PM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:35 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < >>>>>> bened...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>> Yes, I also miss those fortnightly (or monthly) summaries that >> Jeff >>>>>>> used to do. They were very useful "glue" in the community. I >> imagine >>>>> they'd >>>>>>> also make writing the board report easier. >>>>>>> +1, those were great >>>>>> I'll try to either do more of these, or nudge someone else into >> doing >>>>> them >>>>>> from time to time. >>>>> (I meant ^ if Josh doesnt volunteer. Would love to have Josh do >> them if >>>>> he's got time). >>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
