Moving back to dev. Since it seems like there's some confusion on this point, it's perfectly normal for PMC discussions around new proposals with decision-making authority by the PMC to take place on the public dev list. The private list is only necessary when confidentiality is required, and the dev list allows non-PMC voices to be heard more readily as well as promoting transparency on how consensus was reached.
I am not aware of any ASF policy that would prohibit subcommittees like this. (I'm not aware of precedent in starting one either, but as Aaron pointed out, this *is* common at similar foundations with similar governance goals to the ASF, and there's no reason we can't cross-pollinate good ideas.) On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:47 AM Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Moving dev@ to BCC. I believe the following two major issues should be > discussed and addressed in the original email thread with PMC. > > 1) Creating sub-committees composed of vendor representatives isn't > violating the ASF policy. This PMC has expressed concerns when the original > proposal was raised. Those concerns should be addressed first. > > 2) Mis-usage of "Apache Pulsar Community" without any PMC members involved. > > Chris, > > I think everyone in the PMC appreciates the meetup organizers for > organizing meetups and encourages people to create Pulsar meetups without > any constraints. Coordinating and organizing meetups doesn't require a > committee to do so. > > - Sijie > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:09 PM Chris Latimer <ch...@chrislatimer.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Matteo, > > > > I'm sorry if my last message suggested that volunteering to take on an > effort gives anyone the right to start acting on behalf of the PMC. That > certainly wasn't my intent. The original message in this thread proposed a > way to help people who want to organize meetups do so more successfully. I > only meant to register my appreciation for the community members who are > willing to volunteer their time and energy to help facilitate awareness and > excitement about the technology and express how personally disappointed I > would be to see the PMC take a position that prohibits this kind of > community development activity. > > > > Thank you for taking my perspective into consideration. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Chris Latimer > > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 7:08 PM Matteo Merli <mme...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> > I think it's entirely understandable for the PMC to say "we don't > want to > >> > be responsible for this", but it would be highly unfortunate for the > PMC to > >> > say "we don't want to be responsible for this AND no one from the > community > >> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people > >> > volunteering to take on the effort. > >> > >> That was *absolutely not* what was answered. > >> > >> I re-quote my answer from before: > >> > >> ====== > >> * Everyone is allowed (and encouraged!) to create and promote events > >> around Apache Pulsar (following the ASF guidelines on trademarks) > >> * Using "Apache Pulsar Community" as the organizer is a > >> mischaracterization, since that effort is not coming from the > Pulsar > >> PMC > >> * These events should be renamed to something that makes it > >> absolutely clear this is not from Pulsar PMC > >> ====== > >> > >> > is allowed to do this either", especially when there are people > >> > volunteering to take on the effort. > >> > >> Volunteering to take on the effort doesn't give the right to start > >> acting on behalf of the PMC. >
