Hi Greg, Thanks for taking the time to give feedback here.
> On Jun 27, 2020, at 4:08 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 got the list of people from the web page before Sam provided code. I think it might be better to provide a link to the "Who We Are" page which everyone should know how to use. The list of "BOARD MEMBERS and OFFICERS" should be very straightforward and no additional code is needed. > > 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". I expect that once we are happy with this, an email sent to every required signer will make it clear who is on the list.d > > After reading it, I was thinking that I might append to my "gstein.txt" > output with a further declaration. What? > 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. Not the place to do this. Disclosure of possible/actual COI is another project. > > So that leads to: should there be a "further declarations" section? Or > would that just confuse things? This. > And/or just let people hit svn directly to > do such? If we choose to allow this, we will need to be very specific about what the requirements are. But I'd like to wait until someone complains that this process is too easy. > 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. No changes should be needed or allowed to the file once checked in. I'm sure your svn foo will come in handy here. ;-) Regards, Craig > > Cheers, > -g > > ps. I'm not subscribed to this list. if you need me to see a reply, then > cc: me, please Craig L Russell c...@apache.org
