Noah,
ASF has not gotten to where it is by generalizations and abstractions of
nonexistent issues. Whenever anyone brings up a hypothetical, be it in
Legal or Membership quorums, the response is that we deal with it when
there are actual usecases.
I am asking for examples, some type of record to co
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Noah,
> ASF has not gotten to where it is by generalizations and abstractions of
> nonexistent issues. Whenever anyone brings up a hypothetical, be it in
> Legal or Membership quorums, the response is that we deal with it when
> there are ac
If someone in an org I cared about told me they had to take a break for
over a year because it was too damaging for their emotional health I would
be extremely alarmed. My first response would be more to the tune of "oh
wow, I'm so sorry, that's so awful."
I certainly would not immediately jump to
Sam Ruby wrote on 11/15/16 3:41 PM:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
...
> First, if you are not convinced, don't participate. All we ask is that
> you don't actively prevent others from doing so. Go Sharan and
> others!
...
+1.
We have at least three ComDev PMC members
On 11/15/2016 6:48 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
...
You want some sort of "record" to consume. Is a person, on a mailing list,
saying "hey this place was so bad for me I had to take a break" not
evidence enough for you that something might be wrong?
As for the rest of it, this org keeps records of eve
What are you looking for, exactly? I'm not sure what a "use-case" is in
this context.
We have a concrete example of what not to do in this very thread already. I
was contacted off-list by Niclas making it clear he expected me to provide
proof that would "convince" him that I wasn't trying to "bree
What I am looking for is an example of behavior that is permitted by the
current code of conduct but that could be prohibited by a practical,
enforceable set of rules.
On 11/15/2016 8:28 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
What are you looking for, exactly? I'm not sure what a "use-case" is in
this context
That should be "example of undesirable behavior". One could obviously
write a rule that prohibits using words with more than three syllables
in e-mails.
On 11/15/2016 8:56 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
What I am looking for is an example of behavior that is permitted by the
current code of cond
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote on 11/15/16 3:41 PM:
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> ...
>> First, if you are not convinced, don't participate. All we ask is that
>> you don't actively prevent others from doing so. Go Sharan and
On 11/15/16, 9:03 AM, "Patricia Shanahan" wrote:
>That should be "example of undesirable behavior". One could obviously
>write a rule that prohibits using words with more than three syllables
>in e-mails.
Personally, I don't think "rules", "standards" and "policies" are in play
here. The CoC
Not sure how we got here. I wasn't suggesting we update our code of conduct.
Niclas was attacking the concept of "safety", so I was providing a concrete
example of someone (me) who does not feel safe.
Niclas’s response is an example of the sort of thing that has contributed
to me not feeling safe
The multiple perspectives on this topic all seem to have some
validity. However, I do think we can do better at making people feel
comfortable with the Apache culture. For the large part Apache has a
lot of well established members who are experts in many topic areas
and well versed in the Apache
On 15/11/2016 17:28, Noah Slater wrote:
> What are you looking for, exactly? I'm not sure what a "use-case" is in
> this context.
>
> We have a concrete example of what not to do in this very thread already. I
> was contacted off-list by Niclas making it clear he expected me to provide
> proof tha
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Tim Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>> Sam Ruby wrote on 11/15/16 3:41 PM:
>>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> ...
>>> First, if you are not convinced, don't participate. All we ask is that
>>> y
Do we have an overview of the whole decision/action process around
retiring each of a podling, a TLP, and a module/subproject within a TLP?
I know the Attic has technical process documentation - but do we have a
guide for the whole process, starting with either a community member (or
the board!) n
Al i on the right mailing list?
This is Dev, right?
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Tim Williams > wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Shane Curcuru > wrote:
> >> Sam Ruby wrote on 11/15/16 3:41 PM:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:11
Mark and Sam,
Thanks for providing some concrete material and context.
In both (terrible) cases, what can possibly change within ASF that this
won't happen in the future? We can't control what individuals will do.
Given a large enough population, you will always find unacceptable and
criminal beha
Is anything wrong with that the PMC is handling this on a
project-by-project basis?
Likewise, you could say similar "communicating that status to the larger
public community" for just about every aspect of a project's life, and that
those are inconsistent across the ASF.
* Release cycles
* Progra
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> And FTR, yes, I am obviously incredulous and ignorant enough to not see how
> any mechanism in the ASF setup causes or encourages bad behavior from
> individuals.
I do *NOT* believe that anybody has stated that. I certainly didn't.
Misst
You misunderstand. This isn't about replacing one type of assumption about
your intentions with another type. Instead, it's about holding people
accountable for their actions (and the effects of those actions)
irrespective of their intentions.
As has been mentioned on this thread already, not many
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Shane Curcuru
wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote on 11/15/16 3:41 PM:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Niclas Hedhman
> wrote:
> ...
> > First, if you are not convinced, don't participate. All we ask is that
> > you don't actively prevent others from doing so. Go Shar
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
> You misunderstand. This isn't about replacing one type of assumption about
> your intentions with another type. Instead, it's about holding people
> accountable for their actions (and the effects of those actions)
> irrespective of their intent
22 matches
Mail list logo
