Bit of a long message here, but that’s because I’m trying to address your many disparate points.
Jarek, I am sensing TWO things in your message. 1) You are concerned that we are instituting a police state 2) You have a subtly different understanding of what it is that I’m trying to do here than I do. I’d like you to notice, explicitly, that every single one of the working groups I have proposed has this in common: It is not creating a new activity. It is, rather, putting structure around something that we are already doing, specifically so that it will encourage more people to do it. Structure helps some people have the courage to get involved. Sharpening, for example - you are already doing it. I am already doing it, very intentionally, in several different projects, although we don’t call it that. This working group intends to create consistency and best practice, so that more people will do it. That’s all. > On Feb 15, 2024, at 6:39 PM, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > 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. People who are interested in a project, and helping it out, can go become part of that project. That’s how it’s always been. Nobody is *ever* assigned a project to go get involved in, and this program would not create any such assignments. That would be contrary to how we do things at Apache. The Board is not involved in this at all, and would never be. > > 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 Today, individuals choose project to go get involved in. That’s how you got involved in the projects that you work on. The Board has no say in what projects you or I are involved in. Nothing in this working group proposal changes that. It merely creates tools and structure around what we’re already doing. Again so that more people will feel empowered/permitted to do it. > > * 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. I am completely unclear what you’re proposing here. Accidental? People get involved in projects because they’re interested in the project. Nobody is assigned a project to work on. We are a volunteer organization. Maybe you can explain what risk you’re trying to avoid here? > > * 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. Well, ok, sure, I could see a PMC approaching ComDev and saying “can someone help us?” That already happens. But, also, I can see an individual getting on a PMC mailing list because they see something that they think needs help. That’s how we do things today. It’s the nature of my involvement in every Apache project I’m currently involved in. Again, I’m unclear what risk you’re trying to avoid. Please remember that this working group is NOT a board project. It’s a working group of peers. > > * 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. Sure, ideally, we aim for that kind of diversity in everything we do. > > * 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. You’ve lost me entirely here. Any ASF member, who sees a problem with a project, and upon engaging with that project finds the project unwilling to address the problem, can, and perhaps should, escalate that problem to the board. That is the state of affairs TODAY, and would not be changed by any working group we may create. So, once again, it appears that you are afraid that we are attempting to create some kind of citizen’s patrol or police state, and that’s simply not the case. > 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. But, completely to the contrary, what’s happening today is that the Board is doing the job of ComDev. Community development, or coaching, or mentoring, is NOT the job of the board, but some directors are doing it simply because nobody else is. Moving this task to ComDev, rather than the board, is a step AWAY from policing projects, towards mentoring them. So, here, too, you seem concerned that this is some arm of a police state, and a long arm of the board. It’s exactly the opposite. It’s *removing* a task from the board, and moving it down the stack to a group with *less* authority. > > 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. Other than assuring you I am not a totalitarian regime, I honestly don’t know how to address your concerns here. Sharpeners are *not* an arm of the board. They are mentors, agreeing to come alongside a project to help them operate in ways that align with the Apache ethos. > > * 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". The longstanding ethos of Apache is that people go work on the things they care about, for their own private reasons. Sure, PMCs can reach out and ask for help. But as an individual, I can go get involved in any project at the Foundation, for my own reasons. And, furthermore, as a Member, I am at liberty to talk to the board about concerns I have about any of those projects. Putting structure around this encourages more people to get involved, and tries to put guardrails around how they go about it, specifically so that it’s not seen as unfettered power. You seem extremely suspicious of the motives our your fellow ASF members. I’m not sure I understand why. > > * 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. Although, quite honestly, it really bugs me that you feel the need to put “and I’m probably wrong” in every sentence you write, viewing the Board as all-knowing, all-seeing wise people looking down on us is, I think, a harmful position for Members to take. The board are elected representatives from among us, who are supposed to be doing the things that represent all of us. Members can, and should, participate in the daily running of the Foundation, rather than leaning on the Board for all the things. The entire goal of these working groups is to give permission to the rest of us to do the work that we seem intent to shove off onto the board. And in the case of Sharpeners, it’s specifically because getting directly involved in a project leads to more empathy and compassion than reading a dry report every 3 months. > 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. This is NOT policing. It is mentoring. And if you can only see it as policing, then you have *completely* missed what I am trying to do here. > > 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. Ok, but it’s not. And, the entire way that Apache projects work is that people go do stuff because they believe it’s right. Once again, the entire point of these working groups is not to create new tasks, but to get people to work together on what they’re already doing separately, and to encourage more people to come do it with us. The working group has no authority. It’s a camp fire around which to discuss, and craft best practice. You are *already* performing these sharpening activities within Airflow. Are you abusing your position? Why do you assume that I would? I am *already* performing these activities within 4 different projects. Do you assume I am abusing my position? Your suspicion here is perplexing to me. > > 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. You already *have* joined the group. Welcome, friend. Your message is … confusing, honestly. You both say “I’m already doing all of these things, and want more people to do them”, and at the same time, you seem have created a narrative that this is nothing more nor less than a list of rules, and we will march into projects and start enforcing them. I guess I’m asking you to have a little more faith in our motives here. ComDev is a PMC. It is not a “board extension”. ComDev does report to the board, because that’s how Apache structures things. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
