On 30/05/2016 18:30, Ross Gardler wrote: > Yes. Thanks to everyone working this out.
Done. Thanks Marvin. The next step is to expand the list of contacts. The call for volunteers was made on the private members@ mailing list so, in keeping with the ASF policy of not copying information from a private list to a public one, I won't list those volunteers here. What I will do is pass the list to Ross for him to review. Once reviewed, I'll check with each of the volunteers to make sure they are happy being listed as a PoC and, if they are, get them added. It was suggested that each listed volunteer should include a link to a picture and a brief bio. Any concerns or objections? If not, can I suggest that the volunteers create https://home.apache.org/~availid/coc.html and we link to that? Mark > From: Mark Thomas<mailto:ma...@apache.org> > Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 1:53 AM > To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org> > Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache > Projects?) > > > > On 29/05/2016 23:07, Ross Gardler wrote: >> For the record I do have training in counselling. Its fairly lightweight and >> basically boils down to knowing how to respond and when to escalate to a >> specialist. > > Ross, > > There looks to be general agreement that archiving abuse reports is a > bad idea. On the grounds that handling these is a president@ function, > are you happy for Marvin's patch to be applied where you are listed with > your @a.o email as the only volunteer (and a note that the list is > expected to be expanded shortly)? > > Assuming you are OK with this, we can get this done and then discuss > expanding that list of volunteers and some of the other improvements > that have been suggested. > > Mark > > > >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> From: Ross Gardler<mailto:ross.gard...@microsoft.com> >> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 3:06 PM >> To: Joseph Schaefer<mailto:joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID>; >> dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org> >> Cc: Joseph Schaefer<mailto:joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID> >> Subject: RE: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache >> Projects?) >> >> >> Yes its positive and I've supported it every step, including stating >> whatever folks decide is best. I'm just saying that the kind of reporting >> you hope for is unlikely to materialize. >> >> >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> >> >> From: Joseph Schaefer<mailto:joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID> >> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 12:03 PM >> To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org> >> Cc: Joseph Schaefer<mailto:joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID> >> Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on Apache >> Projects?) >> >> >> >> So whittling down the access to this information from 600 odd members to a >> handful of people isn't a positive step Ross? We can certainly debate the >> necessity for an ombudsman alias but that has little to do with the benefits >> of having a collaborative team of people to deal with this. >> >> Keep in mind Ross that your own expertise in this matter is limited to your >> own direct experiences- we as an org have absolutely no insight into how >> well you have done in this capacity. Again we should look at the facts like >> retainment and satisfaction of the reporter- what we're doing isn't enough >> if the person just winds up walking away from the asf post hoc. >> >> The org has not paid for your training in this matter, and your business >> training from dealing with sexual harassment issues at work does not >> directly translate because there are no employees here at the asf. Trust >> me, I've sat through those same dull meetings myself- it's more about what >> not to do to avoid a federal case being filed against the company. >> >> I too have some experiences dealing with other students being sexually >> harassed by their professors, so I'm not particularly ignorant of the >> surrounding issues as to why complaints are filed to whom and what sorts of >> remedies are typically desired. In my capacity as graduate student >> representative, despite having a very close relationship with the department >> chair I never came across a reporter willing to authorize me to share their >> report with the chair. They always wanted to keep it informal and low key- >> at best I was asked to confront the professor in question that I was aware >> of what was going on with an anonymous person. >> >> What I'm suggesting is that these volunteers discuss directly with the >> reporters the options available, and that includes every level of >> escalation, even to other ombudsman. This doesn't seem particularly >> difficult to grasp, and allows a less experienced volunteer to usher in >> advice and support from the rest of the team. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On May 29, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I don’t think you’ll see that benefit. Privacy and safety from repudiation >>> is a critical factor. You don't get that with a group sharing experiences >>> and reports. In some cases I have agreed never to reveal the fact a >>> complaint was made. That’s why I have only provided estimated counts. I >>> don’t want to go back and count (in fact I don’t even keep the emails in >>> some cases). >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm not saying a group is bad, more choice is good. All I'm saying is that >>> the primary goal of this focused activity is to deal with the specifics and >>> thus extracting generalities in small numbers and non-specific summaries of >>> unique situations is not so helpful. >>> >>> >>> >>> A more important goal, in the foundation rather than individual sense, is >>> to deal with the root cause and make the approach being discussed here >>> unnecessary. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Joseph Schaefer<mailto:joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID> >>> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 10:56 AM >>> To: dev@community.apache.org<mailto:dev@community.apache.org> >>> Subject: Re: ombudsman@ (was Encouraging More Women to Participate on >>> Apache Projects?) >>> >>> >>> >>> Also the reasoning about avoiding one man shows for software projects >>> applies equally well to our ingress reporting strategy. Right now the only >>> person who has acquired any substantial real word experience dealing with >>> such reports is Ross, and perhaps a few other individuals who have proxied >>> reports to him on behalf of another. Ross won't be president forever, and >>> hence won't be the perpetual ultimate point of contact for abuse reports, >>> should we still consider that a necessity. >>> >>> Hence saddling this responsibility to a small team has all the social >>> advantages that a collaborative group of developers has over a one man >>> effort, from both a survivability standpoint and a performance standpoint. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On May 29, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.INVALID> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> No the president is definitely not part of the problem Niclas. We're >>>> discussing the delivery mechanism for the most part, as well as reasoning >>>> about why some people insist on having an officer listed as the "ultimate" >>>> reporting mechanism. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My own experience dealing with sexual harassment reports when I was in >>>> graduate school is that the reporters felt more comfortable reporting to >>>> people like me who had relatively little formality in our power or >>>> position, because what they were looking for was not a formal reprimand, >>>> but simply to have the misbehavior stopped, without risk of retribution >>>> towards the reporter. The higher you go up the formal ladder, the less >>>> likely you will be successful from the reporter's standpoint in achieving >>>> a positive outcome "from their perspective". Again it's about what's in >>>> the reporter's best interests: sometimes all they want is a shoulder to >>>> cry on, and some empathy for their plight. If we can positively change >>>> the situation for the better that's great, but it certainly doesn't >>>> require a formal title at Apache to achieve that goal, most of the time. >>>> But when it does, that can always inform the discussion with the >>>> ombudsperson instead of being the starting point for a report. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 6:17 AM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Is a president-private@ mail forward out of the question? If the president >>>> is part of the problem, then inform to send to board-private@ instead? >>>> >>>> Niclas >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Joe Schaefer >>>>> <joe_schae...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> Roman, >>>>>> I've been beating the archiving problem with president@ like a dead >>>>> horse for the past week- what >>>>>> on earth have you been reading to avoid that reality? >>>>> >>>>> Archiving per se is not a problem. If the archive is only available to >>>>> the board I'm border line ok with that. >>>>> What I didn't know (and it didn't come up in your emails) is that >>>>> there could be other folks having access >>>>> to the content of president@ who may or may not be on the board. >>>>> That's a big, huge problem. >>>>> >>>>>> Furthermore, I doubt president@ has an associated qmail owner file, >>>>> which means any addresses listed in that alias that go to domains whose >>>>> mail servers do strict SPF checks will BOUNCE email from major email >>>>> providers who publish such rules, and those bounce mails may wind up being >>>>> DROPPED by Apache's qmail server since it's attempt to deliver the bounce >>>>> mail back to the sender may also be REJECTED by the original sending >>>>> domain. >>>>> >>>>> That is also a good point. >>>>> >>>>>> All of this leads to problems that, while some are fixable, others are >>>>> simply not. >>>>>> We need a better strategy, and it should be collaborative rather than >>>>> dictatorial. >>>>> >>>>> Not sure what you mean, but as I said ideally I'd like it to be an >>>>> alias for an officer >>>>> appointed by the board. That's my MVP. What Shane suggested builds up on >>>>> that >>>>> and may provide an even better solution. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Roman. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer >>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fzest.apache.org&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7c9759d515c87f4d91e6ce08d387ea8d09%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=2u6lzVmy3y9prPlnDUvhuaZGEFV%2fOEherBdEsDStByA%3d >>>> - New Energy for Java >>> >> >> > >
