I have been refraining from commenting so far but I am just about to catch-up on several other Foundation'y thing and while I generally see it as a good idea (and I would gladly volunteer my time to sharpen some projects if I am accepted as a Sharpener) but there are few details in here that give me some goose bumps. Maybe it's because it's the cultural and background things (and my inherent inability to be part of (rather than cooperate with) of anything that looks corporatishly to me. But - followinareng Rich's comments - I will start from proposed solutions, and then explain what problem they solve rather than stating only the problems I see.
Sorry for the long mail, but I thought about it for last few days to wrap my head around it, and well, I think it's worth spelling out what I came up with. If it's too long for you to read, then feel free to ignore it as well, maybe it's just my rambling. So far - I think, maybe I missed it as I was focused on some security/Airflow issues I had been deeply involved with - there was no discussion on how and when and initiated by whom a Sharpener chooses to join the PMC and what is the relation of PMC - Sharpener - Board and whether and how Board is involved in the process. Who and when originates sharpener joins the project is not (or I could not find.it) defined. I am not sure what was the intention (both to start with and what it might turn into in the future for that part of the relation, but here is what I think about it. Proposed solutions (at least this would be the Sharpeners I'd gladly join): * Sharpeners should be a group of people who should be ready to join PMCs to help them but not proactively choose projects and not (God forbid) be assigned by the Board to some projects * Sharpeners **might** if they want, offer their help to the PMCs directly if they happen to or stumble upon the notion that project might struggle with something (various ways, but not directed, nor asked by the Board) - especially when Sharpener has some relationship with the project / PMC / people (but no corporate interest/ allegiance etc. ). But this should be accidental, purely based on existing relations and serendipity of other conversations happening. * The initiative to reach out to Sharpeners should come from the PMC - almost exclusively. The board (with regular project review) might suggest to the PMC that they consider choosing /asking for Sharpener to help them, it should also be advertised and reminded regularly - possibly as part of reminding about reports, that PMCs can reach out if they feel they need help. And they should be able to choose the person from Sharpener's group who is available to help and whom they can trust. * We should aim to have quite a significant number of Sharpeners from various cultures and backgrounds. so that there is a high chance if PMC struggles, they will find a sharpener they know about or had interacted with in the past and they can trust they can cooperate and get useful relationships there. * most important - Sharpeners should **NEVER** report anything to the board - it should be neither expected nor even hinted they could. Creating a special place for them where they could do it is a BIG HAIRY NO for me. They should be exclusively seen (by the PMC) as helpers, and possibly trigger conversations in the PMC when they see conversation is needed. Not as someone who might report something to the board. They could - same as any other person in the project - be asked during a regular review in case the board member has questions about what's going on and start asking questions. Ideally - the projects with sharpener on board, should be easier to review by the board member, they could just look at the conversations the sharpener takes part in - those will be the potential problematic cases. Since sharpener will make sure those conversations happen on the devlist/private (and will do everything to bring them in), the job of board member should be much easier. Board should treat projects with Sharpener as ones where they can just be sure that Sharpener will trigger the right conversations focusing exclusively on "Apache Way". Simply speaking the Sharpeners should not "do" the job of current Board members, they should just make it a lot easier and more obvious for board members to see problems coming. Now - what problem does my proposed solution solve? * Mainly, trust in intentions, and avoiding seeing the Sharpener as a board "punishing hand" and "policeman". There are a number of statements about that in the current proposal, but the structure where there is a report to the board is 100% opposite of that IMHO. Maybe it's the communist past that influences my impression and thinking - but we - people from Eastern Europe know very well the case where your "friends" and "peers" turned out to be confident that they were spying and got "reports" on you. I know it's absolutely not the case here (we are not talking about evil Empires and totalitarian regimes) - but for me personally you either come to help PMC to do the right thing, or help the board to smell "bad things" and tell the board when you do. Joining the two is IMHO impossible, introduces conflict of interests and will be very badly received by PMCs (who will immediately treat such a person as "snitch"). IMHO Sharpeners should mainly help the projects, but do it in a way that makes Board Member jobs easier, not to become an extension of the board member's "punishing hand" or to "do" the job of the Board Member. It's the responsibility of the Board member to get aware of and speak about what they see is at the level of "wrong" enough for the Board to take actions. Thanks to Sharpeners, it should be way easier, but it's still the job of Board members to assess if the level requires board mentioning and action, not the Sharpeners. * The other problem is the value of such help. It's like with the therapist, you will only really make use of the help you will get if you truly want help. If it's forced or pushed on you. IMHO once the goal of that working group should be to get as many "proven" members to be part of the Sharpeners group and to do A LOT of job advertising it to every PMC and convincing them, it's good for them to reach out when they see a need. But the initiative should come from the PMC (maybe on board's suggestion encouraging them to do so). Once this is happening and it's the PMC to reach out, the effectiveness of Sharpener's involvement rises immediately by an order of magnitude at least. almost by definition IMHO. Also such person's value should be in the value it brings to the project, help and care such person can lend to the PMC, but not in any way in any kind of priviledge that person has because it's "given" to the person (for example being in the position of raising things officially to the board in their part of the report). Having such capability will skew the value of the help the person will bring because it will always be seen as "the person who can report things to the board and have special entry there". * And finally, I think this actually solves the problem I see with the current setup of the PMC <-> Board regular relationship. I personally would love to see (and that's likely wrong) the Board as the "wise" people (for my PMC). Someone I can raise my concerns to, ask for advice and expect that when my PMC has problems I can turn to and get help in solving my problems. I was part of another voluntary organisation - for 30 years I sung in a small 30+ choir which - coincidentally - was an autonomous section of an NGO organisation (well respected in Poland and with long history and wise people taking part and running it). And I still remember well the situation where we had huge conflict resulting in splitting the ensemble in half and huge personal issues (yes of course it happens also in choirs). And then the board of the NGO was there for us - ready to mediate, and eventually making the (wise) decisions when the conflict could not be solved. I wish Board of ASF play similar role - I mentioned it before - assertive but also caring parent, that is there to help in time when it's needed. Now, I know well in the current setip of all-voluntary 9-people board it's not possible (especially proactive care, but also responding when there is a need for help) - I see Sharpeners as taking mainly that role - help and care on a daily (or generally regular) way - where the board has no time for it. But in this case, Sharpener have no (even delegated) authority the Board has, so all they should and can offer - is the care and help, by no means they should be doing policing. That role is still Board's and delegating the policing role - without delegating authority to the people - who should also care and help - cannot end well IMHO. Again, It might be it's just my personal skewed way of seeing the world. I had never been able to stay in a corporate environment for a long time (max 3 years, last time 3 months), mainly because my brain and way of thinking cannot stand hierarchy not based on personal merit and achievements and value someone brings. I just can't stand any corporate hierarchies. This is why - from the very first day I learned about it - the ASF meritocracy was so appealing to me. And this is why I react - alergically - in any case where I feel the "given" position is abused and where volunteers are expected to do stuff not because they believe it's right, but because someone with "given position" is telling them they must do it and telling them how (without good rationale and earned authority and being cooperative, listening and open). So if the Sharpener is the first step to this kind of hierarchy, then I freak out and run as far as I can from it. If any of I wrote makes sense, and if it's seen as a good input to the conversation, I'd be glad to join the group - and possibly - with vast shortening and making more digestible turn those into PRs. But with very straightforward focus and limits - if the Sharpener is seen as someone who mentors and help, i am in. If - even in a slight form - sharpener has duties and expectations to become a board extension and policeman and is expected to send reports "up", then it's very much not part of my mindset, and I wouldn't be happy volunteering my time as Sharpener. (or to the WG). I personally don't think any such reporting and expectation is needed to help other PMCs, and if help is not the main reason for Sharpeners to be, then - again - it's not part of my mindset. J. On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 8:31 PM Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > > > I just have strong feelings about > > community self-governance and understanding and I will be honest about > the > > fact that I am worried about creeping legalism at the ASF. Instead of > > looking for symptoms, I think Sharpeners should be looking for, and > aiming > > to help with, basic challenges. In the use cases, I dumped vague > > descriptions of some challenges. They may be wrong and it might be > better > > to just provide some kind of engagement path for Sharpeners and let them > > dig in. What I don't want to see is "red flags" leading to Sharpeners > > showing up and distracting communities from solving real problems or > making > > them think they have problems when they don't. > > > Sure, that’s a fair criticism. And I think the way forward is to consider > these items and think about what the underlying problem is - or, more > helpfully, what *recommendation* we would want to make to such a project, > and transform this list into, instead, a list of solutions (or additional > entries in the use cases file) rather than problems? > > > > > I will provide a concrete example here that I hope won't offend anyone > <snip> > > It’s a good example, for sure, of someone well-meaning trying to fix a > problem. It feels useful to consider how we would have wanted this handled > instead, with that insight and insider knowledge. Just leave well enough > alone? Find a way to better communicate what’s happening? Encourage other > projects to similar patterns? (I honestly don’t know, because I wasn’t > involved in that situation.) > > > > > The point of the example is that the real problems (and others that I may > > be personally blind to) can only be seen by observing and engaging with > the > > community. When I was a new board member, I used to try to do this for > the > > projects that I was shepherding. It soon became more work than I had > time > > to do consistently, but I always tried. I see the Sharpeners as a > > potential source of people to do this. It might actually be best not to > > have "triggers" for engagement at all other than requests from the > > communities themselves. Maybe just assign people on some kind of > rotation > > like the Board shepherds. That would have the positive side effect of > > Sharpeners getting to learn from healthy communities too. > > I guess I was thinking (but hadn’t written anywhere yet) that the trigger > would be reading board reports, and thinking, hmm, that project looks like > it might need some help. I would *love* to see requests from the > communities. And, indeed, we have gotten those, over the years, here on the > dev@community list, and didn’t have any process for saying yes. So > perhaps the mechanism is to advertise this service to projects, and wait > for takers. Then advertise successes. Repeat. > > What I’ve found as board shepherd is that you never get a deep enough > knowledge of any given project to really be particularly helpful. Each > month when I’m shepherding, I’m spending 20 minutes, maybe, on each > shepherd project. That’s *definitely* not enough time for the kind of deep > dive I think we’re both talking about. My hope is that a sharpener, unlike > a shepherd, would spend enough time listening that they would actually > start to understand what they’re hearing, and become a legitimate member of > the project community. > > >
