I received the test email, but have a couple points of feedback: * it says From:gstein@gmail ... yah, no. I did not send that. Gmail highlighted that wrongness. I would suggest emailing from < secret...@apache.org> * there is no body in the email. just an attachment. Some amount of body text would be great. Especially something like, "if you didn't make this affirmation, then please reply to secretary@, so we can determine what happened."
Cheers, -g On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 6:08 AM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 12:31 PM Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >... > >> I have worked with the members of the Whimsy team to prepare a tool that >> will keep a permanent record of everyone who signs the affirmation. The >> tool is in its final stages of implementation. I invite all of you to >> review the tool for accuracy, usability, and utility. >> >> https://whimsy.apache.org/officers/coi.cgi > > > I would like to see a column on that page specifying "Why me?" Basically, > what role/hat do I have which causes this to apply to me? I'd suggest > something like, one of: [Director, President, EVP, Treasurer, Secretary, > Asst $foo, Officer, VP $bar] > > I mean... I know why I'm supposed to make the affirmation. But Members > performing review may not understand why a given person is on the list. > Shoot... even somebody on the list who gets a reminder may not have read > all the background emails and Board minutes, to understand "you're VP $bar, > so this applies to you". > > After reading it, I was thinking that I might append to my "gstein.txt" > output with a further declaration. I've got svn skills to go hit the file > and do the edits (which may be an interesting concern for audit trail > purposes). I'd append to clarify/disclose my investment(s), and further > affirm they are immaterial to the ASF. > > So that leads to: should there be a "further declarations" section? Or > would that just confuse things? And/or just let people hit svn directly to > do such? Which also leads to: should people be allowed to edit their file > via svn? That records an audit trail, so it isn't really a big deal. But > likely something to explicitly consider. > > Cheers, > -g > > ps. I'm not subscribed to this list. if you need me to see a reply, then > cc: me, please > >
