On 3/28/19 11:58 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
I find it sad that there are (board) members who keep saying that the
situation must improve (because there are problems regarding Diversity and
Inclusion), but when it comes to where it needs to improve (in the projects
mostly) they also keep saying (here and other threads also in other fora in
the past) that there is nothing to be done from the Foundation downwards to
the projects because 'the projects are independent'.
I am not aware of any board members who have said that. Unless you're
construing my comment in that light. Because that is most definitely not
what I said.
The Foundation does do stuff "downwards to the projects." We have, in
fact, established a PMC, named "Community Development" which has that as
its charter.
Furthermore, EVERY SINGLE MONTH, there is at least one (and usually
several) response to a project report, encouraging them to more actively
pursue new committers, lower their bar to entry, actively mentor new
contributors, and so on.
In my book there is where the view-points of those persons go of in wrong
directions. Yes, projects are expected to operate independently from
outside influence. But they can not operate independently from the
organisation they reside under. In a page (See [1]) of the ASF it is stated
that 'the board delegates the technical direction of all projects to each
PMC', but 'are expected to follow corporate policies'. This means that the
policies can be created at Foundation level, and can be policed (by the
Board, and/or through delegation by a specific office). If the highest body
of the Foundation established a strict(er) policy on 'merit awarding'
and/or 'Diversity & Inclusion' then it is obliged, with regards to these
policies, to:
1. ensure that each of the lower level organisational units (OUs like
projects/offices/departments, etc.) acknowledge and apply such policies
Yes, we do that. Daily on board@ and monthly in the board meeting.
2. regularly (and independently of the projects and offices) assess the
adherence to (or compliance with) the policies
Yes, we do that. Projects report quarterly to the board, and at that
time we review their performance with respect to those policies.
3. actively implement corrective measures when an OU fails to adhere to
or comply with such policy.
Yes, we do that too.
Mark suggested in a posting earlier that there is something called the D&I
team that could be tasked with gathering advice from domain experts, and
advise the President/Board on how to improve this situation. But it seems
(I have done some searching on ASF pages regarding this D&I team) the team
has not been established formally and thus no insights on its mission and
production can be established. Maybe that still needs to happen? Or is it
flying very low under the radar, or.... ?
It's call ComDev. This entire thread is about how we're not doing an
awesome job, and can stand to improve.
Whatever it may be (visages the D&I team), here are some suggestions that
may lead to an improved situation:
1. Communicate (e.g. via the ASF's web site) clearly where contributors,
who feel they were wronged, can submit complaints;
For the Incubator, this is documented here -
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/PodlingBillOfRights
For the foundation as a whole, it is documented here:
https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct
2. Treat complaints (and their submitters) seriously and discretely;
If you have evidence that this has not happened, I encourage you to
report it, as per the above documentation.
3. Have a protocol published so that everybody can learn about what to
expect and when to expect it.
I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Can you elaborate on what kind
of "protocol" you're referring to?
--
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
