No problem. So far all I've learned from this experience
is that Henri and Anjana should probably exchange phone
numbers so they can congratulate each other without bothering
their intellectual inferiors who are trying to do something
constructive on this list. The insinuation that somehow
my fee
Thanks Joe.
Ross
On 01/08/2010 13:19, Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message
From: Anjana G Bhattacharjee
To: Ted Dunning
Cc: dev@community.apache.org
Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 6:40:27 AM
Subject: Re: Contributing positively to a meritocracy (was Re: [DISCUSS]
[VOTE] roll wo...@a.o i
- Original Message
> From: Anjana G Bhattacharjee
> To: Ted Dunning
> Cc: dev@community.apache.org
> Sent: Sun, August 1, 2010 6:40:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Contributing positively to a meritocracy (was Re: [DISCUSS]
>[VOTE] roll wo...@a.o into d...@community.a.o)
>
> Hi Ted,
>
> Thanks
Hi Ted,
Thanks for being willing to cc your reply to women@ - guess you got the same
response to that one too, eh ?
Now, who do you figure it was that had been willing to perform that
operation ? And with what manner of sentiment ? And do such things matter
for a next time around, for a next poss
Process comes after somebody willing to perform the process.
-1 to the proposed womAn mailing list.
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Anjana G Bhattacharjee <
a.g.bhattachar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> as ever, my focus here is on process
Dear Ross,
Thanks for this - let me unpack it a little:
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> This information you request can be harvested, but it takes time, a very
> precious commodity. The information may already be published somewhere
> publicly (someone may point us in t
This information you request can be harvested, but it takes time, a very
precious commodity. The information may already be published somewhere publicly
(someone may point us in the right direction if they are still reading).
If your concern is about a lack of support for women in the ASF then
Hi Jean,
Thanks for replying to this here at women@ - the post was in response to a
message posted to women@ only, and so technically, my reply was necessarily
in response to the post at women@ and then cross-posted to d...@community,
rather than vice versa, with all due respect ;-)
Am conscious
Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
Have just come across a curious parallel to this, perhaps, in the arena of
Golf tournament sponsorship - IBM sponsored "the Masters" (i.e. men's only)
tournament in April this year with a flurry of justification [1] whilst this
weekend's "Women's British Open" was
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Kathey Marsden wrote:
> It is actually my hope that a separate list will not be necessary as I tend
> to like a more integrated approach.(I did not much care, for example,
> explaining to my middle school son why a free technology camp this summer
> was being
On 7/19/2010 10:35 PM, Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
"So much emptiness,
even with the windows shut,
especially since no one ever lived inside.
How do we listen to silence
and learn to keep listening?"
Empty Houses in Baja California
Poems No.27
by Kenneth Liberman
(my friend and mentor)
I am
Hi Anjana,
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Anjana G Bhattacharjee
wrote:
> ...How do we listen to silence
> and learn to keep listening?"...
I find listening to silence on mailing lists fairly hard, and making
sense of it even harder.
I have tallied the vote about women@ as there was clear con
"So much emptiness,
even with the windows shut,
especially since no one ever lived inside.
How do we listen to silence
and learn to keep listening?"
Empty Houses in Baja California
Poems No.27
by Kenneth Liberman
(my friend and mentor)
Ted Dunning wrote:
How about just edit it to point to the comdev mailing list?
Thanks for the suggestion, Ted, I just updated the wiki.
If we want to leave the wiki be and also leave it editable, then
wikidiffs need to be re-routed from women@ to comdev.
thanks,
-jean
On Mon, Jul 19, 20
How about just edit it to point to the comdev mailing list?
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Can we add a task that Jira to either remove the wiki (
> http://wiki.apache.org/Women/) or make it readonly? or do we need a new
> Jira request?
>
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
...The vote shows consensus
for an autoresponder so I'll ask for that
See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2883
-Bertrand
Can we add a task that Jira to either remove the wiki
Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
Just keep the channel open - how
much is it costing us to run? Is the workload to heavy and need it be
rotated every few years or so to keep it alive?
I'm an active moderator for women@ and the workload is not onerous, but
it does exist, and both the list and the
On 19/07/2010 15:58, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
...The vote shows consensus
for an autoresponder so I'll ask for that
See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2883#
Thanks Bertrand.
Ross
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> ...The vote shows consensus
> for an autoresponder so I'll ask for that
See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2883
-Bertrand
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> ...Comdev people, please vote on folding women@ into this mailing list,
> see also [1].
>
> The idea is to close the women@ list and/or or setup an autoresponder
> that directs people to this list instead
The vote passes with
Bertrand wrote:
Comdev people, please vote on folding women@ into this mailing list,
see also [1].
The idea is to close the women@ list and/or or setup an autoresponder
that directs people to this list instead.
[ ] +1 let's dot it
[ ] -1 no, because...
[ ] +0 don't care
+1 (non-binding) to cl
Dear Ross,
Firstly, thank you for your questions - and no need whatsoever to forgive
you for asking - the fact that you are finally asking again is vindication
enough, for the time being at least ;-)
Secondly, should say for the record that have just picked up this message,
and am replying having
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Anjana G Bhattacharjee
wrote:
> -1 (unbinding)
>
> because this vote, and the "dot it" slip, reminds me of a problem of
> relevance when "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" when framing any vote,
> so to speak
I'll admit, I'm often "lazy" when it came to consen
Benson Margulies wrote:
There's a small potential that someone could misunderstand one thing
in Jean's message, so I want to make what I see as a clearer statement
of one point.
Mailing lists of the form priv...@somepmc.apache.org \are/ archived.
Those archives are \not/ available to the general
There's a small potential that someone could misunderstand one thing
in Jean's message, so I want to make what I see as a clearer statement
of one point.
Mailing lists of the form priv...@somepmc.apache.org \are/ archived.
Those archives are \not/ available to the general public, but they are
full
Ross Gardler wrote:
On Oct 28th 2009 I made the women@ list aware of the opportunity to
revitalize the women@ objectives through comdev [1]. Specifically I
said "The wo...@a.o list has not really gone anywhere, but maybe this
is another chance to look at the lack of female representation here
Before addressing your suggestion I first wish to correct a few errors
in your post.
The creation of ComDev was not made at the barcamp session you refer to.
It was created prior to that meeting as a result of discussion through
the normal ASF mailing lists and a subsequent Board Resolution.
Hi Ross,
Thanks for replying to the women@ list and cc-ing to others as appropriate
The matter at hand is of course one of decision-making process, albeit with
regards to women@ on this occasion, and it is the process that concerns me,
given that it may not be condusive to community development i
Anjana,
The vote is to merge the woman@ list into this one. The way things work around
here is that they get done in the way someone gets them done. So if someone
cares enough to get an auto-responder set up then one will be set up.
This vote is the result of previous discussion on the topic,
Hi,
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
> It was "noise" because on a busy morning I was too distracted to read
> Bertrand's original post carefully and, thus, missed your point, which was
> responding directly to what he wrote. I hate it when that happens :-) but
> no harm done.
>
Thanks for kind reply,
Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
Hi Jean,
Certainly doesn't sound like noise to me - but maybe we should
continue this conversation on the women@ list ?
It was "noise" because on a busy morning I was too distracted to read
Bertrand's original post carefully and, thus, missed your point, which
Thanks for the data point. This means that marcmail.com is no longer indexing
women@
I have no idea why.
However, the arguments for bringing women@ into comdev stand in my opinion.
Sent from my mobile device.
On 17 Jul 2010, at 18:44, Anjana G Bhattacharjee
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jul 1
Hi Jean,
Certainly doesn't sound like noise to me - but maybe we should continue this
conversation on the women@ list ?
Best, A
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>> Thanks -- that's a terrific suggestion to auto-respond that wo...@activity
>>
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> A little history is probably relevant here. Woman@ was set up on Aug 7
> 2005, during that time it has had very little activity with the most recent
> email being Sept 14th 2007.
> The fact is that people are not looking for a list call
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Thanks -- that's a terrific suggestion to auto-respond that women@
activity has moved to d...@community. If this vote passes, I'll check
with infra@ to see if an an auto-responder can be set up.
d'oh! I was guilty of being distracted and not reading closely enough to
On 7/16/2010 2:17 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Comdev people, please vote on folding women@ into this mailing list,
see also [1].
The idea is to close the women@ list and/or or setup an autoresponder
that directs people to this list instead.
+1
Anjana,
Thanks for your comments.
A little history is probably relevant here. Woman@ was set up on Aug 7
2005, during that time it has had very little activity with the most
recent email being Sept 14th 2007.
The fact is that people are not looking for a list called "women@".
Nevertheless t
[x] +1 let's dot it
-jean
Anjana G Bhattacharjee wrote:
-1 (unbinding)
because this vote, and the "dot it" slip, reminds me of a problem of
relevance when "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" when framing any vote,
so to speak
in this case, would suggest that there may be a significant difference
between the options o
-1 (unbinding)
because this vote, and the "dot it" slip, reminds me of a problem of
relevance when "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" when framing any vote,
so to speak
in this case, would suggest that there may be a significant difference
between the options of:
(a) closing women@ and
(b) s
On 16/07/2010 10:17, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
The idea is to close the women@ list and/or or setup an autoresponder
that directs people to this list instead.
[ ] +1 let's dot it
+1
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
The idea is to close the women@ list and/or or setup an autoresponder
that directs people to this list instead.
+1
Nick
+1 (non binding)
Tommaso
2010/7/16 Bertrand Delacretaz
> > [X ] +1 let's dot it
>
> -Bertrand (I meant "let's do it" of course ;-)
>
> [X ] +1 let's dot it
-Bertrand (I meant "let's do it" of course ;-)
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> ...I have infrastructure in mind, though, of course, the ultimate objective is
> to do exactly what you say. It would help it to rewind back to the thread in
> January [1] to which Bertrand responded:
>
>> When this PMC was created, t
45 matches
Mail list logo
