The most important question is: where do the people who are currently most active doing the real work of the survey and organizing informational materials on diversity@ want to do that work? Ensuring they have a productive space and framework to work is the first thing to solve. That said...
Myrle Krantz wrote on 5/1/19 7:06 AM: ...snip... > * Make it a sub-committee of ComDev. This is nothing more than a page on community.a.o and the diversity@ mailing list. We already effectively have that. The only difference would be having a formal page on the website that lists who's there, essentially copying what we've done in the mailing list. In terms of powers, none in particular. Membership changes by the PMC voting in new PMC members (or allowing committers to participate, etc.) Reports would be part of the quarterly ComDev report. > * Make it a president's committee. The proposal is to also name a VP of that committee as well. The VP is an officer, and can perform duties for the ASF within the scope of whatever charter the board originally creates the VP officer with. Historically, we've had the board create *new VP roles* with a title and description, and appoint the first person to that role. For President's committees and other VPs reporting to the President, we've had the President thereafter simply make new appointments to existing roles directly (always reported in board reports). President's committees can be changed by the President at any point, or by the VP in charge if specifically authorized to do so. Also, since President's committees are mostly about operations, we have examples of officers like this having regular annual budgets and signing authority. They cannot release software (publicly). They could have a separate website and mailing lists. President's committees report monthly. > * Make it it's own PMC. This requires a normal board resolution, and would act like any other PMC, especially in terms of managing PMC or committer membership. We've done straight-to-PMC before (i.e. not going through Incubation), it just needs the scope description of the PMC and the list of VP and members. They could release software and all the usual PMC things, and they report to the board quarterly. ---- Elsethread, Mark also mentioned a board committee. They have the powers of the board. Changing board committees (normally) takes a board resolution, meaning it takes more time to add/remove people. They report monthly to the board. While President's committees have a broad scope of operations, often looking across the whole ASF, they do not have direct power to generally set policies across other projects. Board committees, on the other hand, could directly enact and enforce policies across projects. ---- Personally, I'm +1 for a President's committee. Right now, we need a place where people actively doing productive work can do so. President's committees provide plenty of oversight and monthly reporting. A lot of the work will be gathering data and creating solid materials that projects or other officers can choose to use to help improve our communities, or doing their own direct outreach at conferences or the like. Those are all things well suited to a President's committee with a named VP. -- - 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
