The conversation here seems incoherent because of a few factors. One is by the use of "community'' and "project" interchangeably, as required to support this proposal - community in one context to support holding meetups/conferences and at the same time asking the PMC to manage this effort under the project. Adding to that confusion is that part of this conversation is happening on the private list.
There are things assumed in this proposal that are implied, and not explicit. The issue is not about the PMC and the creation of a sub-committee/working group/Umbrella group, ( however you name it ) but with what it implies. Consider* "(with representatives from multiple vendors as well as unaffiliated participants)". * That seems like corporations/vendors getting rights/endorsements/blessings, via some governance/PMC/ blessed roles, bypassing Apache meritocracy for individuals- in this case, by means of "sub-committees/working/umbrella groups ". - It is very clear that ASF does not allow corporations to participate directly in Apache project management. - It is also clear that there is nothing limiting any vendor - other than compliance to ASF policy - to market, sell software, organize conferences, meetups etc So what is new here in this proposal ? Other than "vendor representation" as a means to bypass the meritocratic constraint on the project, and introduce vendor rights and privileges into the project? *>> "what we meant to say in the Marketing/Communications working group proposal is that we wanted a diversity of members, rather than all volunteers to be from the same company or dominated by one company."* The vast majority of Pulsar PMC and committers are not affiliated with any vendor, and are just Pulsar users. Vendor representation, by itself, is not a basis for anything in ASF projects. Vendors are not directly represented in the project . It's individuals. This seems like asserting vendor neutrality trumps merit, and merit should be sacrificed for vendor neutrality. I see that as hard to buy. Marketing smells of commercial activity, dragging the PMC into vendor business activities *>>Having an Umbrella Group also prevents or at least makes it tougher for the “wild west” of meetup organizations to happen. For Apache Hadoop, both Cloudera and Hortonworks sponsored competing meetups early on, which led to tons of problems for that community around vendor neutrality.* This seems a roundabout way of demanding that PMC should mediate/endorse/coordinate among vendors, under the perceived cloud of "else bad things will happen". [As an aside, neither Cloudera nor Hortonworks had any rights by virtue of just being a vendor, There were merited individuals in both camps]. . *>>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",* Enforcing compliance to ASF policy cannot be equated to prohibition of anyone. There is nothing prohibiting vendors/users/groups to host their own groups/meetups/events . ASF already has an event/branding policy that lays out how this can be done, and it's neutral and allows anyone to host events. Vendors/Users are also free to associate in whatever manner they choose, and host events, subject to the same ASF policy. They don't need the PMC to manage this under the Project flag to do so. Anyone can follow ASF policy and have as many events as needed. The more of these events, the better it is. This proposal implicitly demands that being a vendor, by itself, should confer some privileges/rights or blessings by the project PMC (call it membership in working group/subcommittee/Umbrella group .. ) and that the PMC should get into the business of running/marketing vendor activities. That seems to stand on its head the Apache policy of vendor neutrality. It's essentially insisting that the PMC actively market all vendors, instead of none. I think there is no reason for the PMC/project to take on the "Project should manage vendors/vendor activities" role, or provide rights to vendors. It is not the PMC's role to manage vendors, mediate between vendors or to promote/market vendor interests. There is a well established, time-tested ASF policy on events and branding, and there is no need to invent a new one. This proposal is a solution in search of a problem. -j On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 4:26 PM Aaron Williams <aa...@wi5s.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I think that there is some confusion on a couple of terms. > > Vendor Neutrality- What we said caused a lot of confusion, what we meant > to say in the Marketing/Communications working group proposal is that we > wanted a diversity of members, rather than all volunteers to be from the > same company or dominated by one company. Community members want to > volunteer to promote the project and not a company or group of companies. > If they feel that their hard work is used to promote the Community then > they will be filled with a sense of pride and will want to do more. If > they feel that it is going to one company then they will get a bad taste in > their mouth. > > Sub-committee- It seems that the name sub-committee is causing some > issues. Why don’t we call it a “working group”? We are clear that this > working group (like all working groups) would serve at the pleasure of the > entity that created it, i.e., the Apache Pulsar PMC. > > Hopefully with those clarifications/corrections we can focus a little more > on the two issues that have been combined in this email chain. > > Marketing/Communications Working Group- > > The PMC has the power to create working group(s). The goal of the working > group (as has been proposed) would be to promote the community, offer > suggestions and recommendations to the PMC on how best to communicate the > workings of Apache Pulsar community to the broader streaming and Open > Source communities. > > An Analogy: If the community proposed and the PMC approved a security > working group, no one would think that the PMC was “essentially carving out > the prerogatives of the PMC and the oversight that it’s responsible to > exercise.” But actually the opposite would be true. It would show that > security is so important that we created a group that focuses on it. > > So like all working groups, the Marketing/Communications Working Group > would serve at the pleasure of the PMC, and the PMC can set the rules of > the working group, change them, and disband it at any time. The PMC could > choose its members or just ask for volunteers. > > So given that these seem to be the hurdles to the formation of the Working > Group, I would like to ask the question, should the members be chosen or > should it just be who would like to volunteer to help out? Either way the > meetings or email list would be open to the public. > > Meetups and the Umbrella Group- > > We are all in agreement that meetups are good. The issue seems to be if > the PMC should support them directly, allow the community to run them > without oversight or interference, or stop them entirely? (There will be > other things to discuss, but this is the Step 1 question) > > There are many reasons to create an Umbrella group. The easiest reason to > understand is that it makes finding another group’s events much easier. > And since just about everything is virtual right now, a community member > would be able to see and attend other groups from around the world. > Similarly, as the organizer of a local group, it makes it easier to avoid > scheduling conflicts. > > If a community member wants to create their own group, this will give them > lots of meetup groups to model and get ideas from. Finally, as the local > meetups grow, “the dots on the map” becomes very impressive. This tells > future community members that this is a vibrant community that will have a > lasting impact on programming and you want to be part of this community. > (BTW go to Hyperledger’s page to see an impressive number of dots on the > map)[1] > > Having an Umbrella Group also prevents or at least makes it tougher for the > “wild west” of meetup organizations to happen. For Apache Hadoop, both > Cloudera and Hortonworks sponsored competing meetups early on, which led to > tons of problems for that community around vendor neutrality. We can avoid > this can of worms for Apache Pulsar by providing oversight and guidance > from the beginning. > > Thus, given the above and that it is better for the organizers, better for > the PMC’s responsibility to oversee vendor neutrality, and better for users > and potential users to manage meetups with a little more structure, I would > recommend that the PMC go forward with giving its blessing to the Umbrella > model. > > Thanks, > Aaron > > [1] https://www.meetup.com/pro/hyperledger > > > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 8:03 AM Sree Vaddi <sree_at_ch...@yahoo.com > .invalid> > wrote: > > > This meetup was the oldest, started by founders of the Apache Pulsar.It > > has 338 members. And recent event in May 2021. > > > > https://www.meetup.com/SF-Bay-Area-Apache-Pulsar-Meetup/ > > > > > > Thank you./Sree > > > > On Thursday, August 19, 2021, 05:35:43 AM PDT, Jonathan Ellis < > > jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > >
