Decisions and Behavior

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Decisions and Behavior

Dave Fisher-2
Hi -

You were asked to start a new thread. I did it for you.

What do you hope to accomplish in these threads?

Please review the ASF code of conduct before continuing.

https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 5, 2020, at 2:34 PM, Jörg Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hello Michael,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2020 8:50 AM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: New Committer: Detlef Nannen
>>
>> Hello Jan-Christian,
>>
>>> Am 03.07.20 um 17:57 schrieb [hidden email]:
>>>
>>> I can speak my mind on my own.
>>
>> That was also my guess.
>>
>> And that means we do not need a "tribunus plebis".
>
> When you make decisions, you should justify them meaningfully, then there will be less criticism.
>
> Remember that we made Günter(?) Feierabend a committer, even without any previous performance, because it was technically useful and I didn't disagree, but rather actively endorsed the approach.
>
>
> and on the edge:
> freedom is, for me, typically evidenced by a variety of different opinions. It may be that even under conditions of freedom everyone has the same opinion, but that is rather atypical and typical for completely different circumstances.
>
>
> greetings,
> Jörg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Decisions and Behavior

Jörg Schmidt-2
Hello,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2020 1:30 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Decisions and Behavior
>
> Hi -
>
> You were asked to start a new thread.

Exactly.  And I already did that five days ago:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r03a46217e16be81696126cff36b9c4c56b82ffe60261c2ba110ece94%40%3Cdev.openoffice.apache.org%3E

Can you please tell me if I am now obliged to open a new thread every time others post in the old thread and I want to reply to them?

Concretely asked:
Jan wrote in the old thread and Michael replied in the old thread.
How should I have answered correctly to Michael's post? By opening a second(!) new thread?

> What do you hope to accomplish in these threads?

I haven't opened any topics, except the new thread I was supposed to open.
In the existing thread I have expressed my opinion freely - that's all.

> Please review the ASF code of conduct before continuing.

Thanks for the advice. I understand what you mean and I will in future, in a similar situation, immediately open a new thread.

However:
Do you really think the problem we are dealing with here, in concrete terms, is that I didn't open a new thread to say what I said? I have the feeling that my opinion, no matter if I write it in the old or in a new thread, is not shared by some participants.


And what was my opinion?
My opinion was *not* criticism of D...f, because about D...f I wrote:

"[D...f] undoubtedly deserves to be a committer,  [...}"

and I congratulated him via PM, because I thought it was the right thing to do in the case of someone with whom I had worked very closely in the community for years.

My criticism concerned the PMC's approach in the present case. I would have simply wished for equal treatment of equal volunteer work, or some other justification (and I have explained what this justification could have been using the example of Günther).



greetings,
Jörg





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Decisions and Behavior

Patricia Shanahan
On 7/6/2020 12:14 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote:
...
> My criticism concerned the PMC's approach in the present case. I would have simply wished for equal treatment of equal volunteer work, or some other justification (and I have explained what this justification could have been using the example of Günther).

I am strongly opposed to the PMC publicly justifying its committer and
PMC decisions.

There are several special cases in which doing to would be very
damaging. If we usually published the background to our decisions, and
refused to do so only in a few cases, people would assume one of those
special cases applies.

I believe we should announce when we have invited a committer or PMC
member and they have accepted, and otherwise keep personnel discussions
private.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Decisions and Behavior

Jörg Schmidt-2
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2020 4:08 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Decisions and Behavior
>
> On 7/6/2020 12:14 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote:
> ...
> > My criticism concerned the PMC's approach in the present
> case. I would have simply wished for equal treatment of equal
> volunteer work, or some other justification (and I have
> explained what this justification could have been using the
> example of Günther).
>
> I am strongly opposed to the PMC publicly justifying its
> committer and
> PMC decisions.

I asked for absolutely nothing of the sort! My reference to Günther, should make clear what I meant.

> There are several special cases in which doing to would be very
> damaging. If we usually published the background to our
> decisions, and
> refused to do so only in a few cases, people would assume one
> of those
> special cases applies.
>
> I believe we should announce when we have invited a committer or PMC
> member and they have accepted, and otherwise keep personnel
> discussions
> private.

And I believe the maximum possible openness is what we should live in a free project every day. This does not mean that there can't be reasons to discuss certain things confidentially, but you should use this possibility with a great sense of proportion.



greetings,
Jörg





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Decisions and Behavior

Dave Fisher-2


> On Jul 6, 2020, at 8:22 AM, Jörg Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2020 4:08 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: Decisions and Behavior
>>
>> On 7/6/2020 12:14 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote:
>> ...
>>> My criticism concerned the PMC's approach in the present
>> case. I would have simply wished for equal treatment of equal
>> volunteer work, or some other justification (and I have
>> explained what this justification could have been using the
>> example of Günther).
>>
>> I am strongly opposed to the PMC publicly justifying its
>> committer and
>> PMC decisions.
>
> I asked for absolutely nothing of the sort! My reference to Günther, should make clear what I meant.

Then why are you mentioning someone by name?

>
>> There are several special cases in which doing to would be very
>> damaging. If we usually published the background to our
>> decisions, and
>> refused to do so only in a few cases, people would assume one
>> of those
>> special cases applies.
>>
>> I believe we should announce when we have invited a committer or PMC
>> member and they have accepted, and otherwise keep personnel
>> discussions
>> private.
>
> And I believe the maximum possible openness is what we should live in a free project every day. This does not mean that there can't be reasons to discuss certain things confidentially, but you should use this possibility with a great sense of proportion.

Apache projects operate via the Apache Way. Part of the Apache Way is that discussion about people who may be invited to be committers and PMC members is ALWAYS private.

http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#confidential <http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#confidential>

Other private discussions include undisclosed security vulnerabilities and discussions like trademark infringements or approvals.

You might want to review:

http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles <http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles>

Regards,
Dave


>
>
>
> greetings,
> Jörg
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Decisions and Behavior

Dr. Michael Stehmann-2
In reply to this post by Jörg Schmidt-2
Hello,

Am 06.07.20 um 17:22 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:

> And I believe the maximum possible openness is what we should live in a free project every day. This does not mean that there can't be reasons to discuss certain things confidentially, but you should use this possibility with a great sense of proportion.
>
The protection of individual-related data protects the freedom of the
individual. So data protection and freedom are not antagonists.

Kind regards
Michael


signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Decisions and Behavior

Jörg Schmidt-2
Hello,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2020 12:10 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Decisions and Behavior
>
> Hello,
>
> Am 06.07.20 um 17:22 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
>
> > And I believe the maximum possible openness is what we
> should live in a free project every day. This does not mean
> that there can't be reasons to discuss certain things
> confidentially, but you should use this possibility with a
> great sense of proportion.
> >
> The protection of individual-related data protects the freedom of the
> individual. So data protection and freedom are not antagonists.

Michael, that's completely undisputed, but that's not the issue here.

(Moreover, this was clearly not about the protection of individual data, because the data is known to everyone. After all, the confidentiality of the personal word is imho law formal not part of individual data.)


What was the issue?
I found out (because it was clear from the discussion) that D...f has been appointed committer based on merit (and not technical necessity[1]).

Patricia countered my answer by saying that it was the PMC's right (and necessity) to speak about some things in a non-public way.

I didn't demand that the PMC speak publicly about pertsonal decisions, but it was clear that individual members of the PMC had publicly expressed their own opinions.
It can be assumed that they have expressed exactly the same opinions in the non-public discussion at the PMC.


And what did I dislike about Patricia's statement?
My _feeling_ was that Patricia overemphasized the PMC's right to non-public discussion, probably because they think I deny that right.

I assure you that I do not doubt this right at all.

But at the same time this right is only a necessity and not our goal, because our goal is openness wherever possible.
Is this difference unclear?



[1]
to mark exactly this difference I referred to the case of Günter, because there it was about technical necessity and not about performance



greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Decisions and Behavior

Jörg Schmidt-2
In reply to this post by Dave Fisher-2
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2020 6:32 PM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: Decisions and Behavior
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 2020, at 8:22 AM, Jörg Schmidt
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2020 4:08 PM
> >> To: [hidden email]
> >> Subject: Re: Decisions and Behavior
> >>
> >> On 7/6/2020 12:14 AM, Jörg Schmidt wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> My criticism concerned the PMC's approach in the present
> >> case. I would have simply wished for equal treatment of equal
> >> volunteer work, or some other justification (and I have
> >> explained what this justification could have been using the
> >> example of Günther).
> >>
> >> I am strongly opposed to the PMC publicly justifying its
> >> committer and
> >> PMC decisions.
> >
> > I asked for absolutely nothing of the sort! My reference to
> Günther, should make clear what I meant.
>
> Then why are you mentioning someone by name?

I do not understand this question. With Günter it has been publicly discussed that we thought it would be appropriate to make him a committer so that he gets write permission.

It wasn't a discussion about the work done, but Günter was new to us, wanted to help us and to do so he needed write permissions.


> Apache projects operate via the Apache Way. Part of the
> Apache Way is that discussion about people who may be invited
> to be committers and PMC members is ALWAYS private.

ABSOLUTELY clear and ABSOLUTELY undisputed by me!

*Please*... let us clarify linguistic difficulties of understanding if necessary, but don't insinuate what I don't mean and what I didn't say.


Please look at what I wrote to Michael:
The right to discuss certain things in private is a necessity, but our goal is openness wherever possible.

I think the difference between necessity and goal should be clear and it should hopefully also be clear that a necessity is nothing unimportant, nothing that is questioned by calling it verbally only "necessity".


One thing I can tell you for sure:
OpenOffice.org was also a free, open project, but at the ASF I learned that openness is even more important here.

(And please: all that the above sentence means is that OOO has had considerably more non-public discussion than AOO - nothing else I want to say.)



greetings,
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Decisions and Behavior

Dr. Michael Stehmann-2
In reply to this post by Jörg Schmidt-2
Hello,

Am 08.07.20 um 09:24 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:

> Michael, that's completely undisputed, but that's not the issue here.
>
> (Moreover, this was clearly not about the protection of individual data, because the data is known to everyone. After all, the confidentiality of the personal word is imho law formal not part of individual data.)
>
>
> What was the issue?
> I found out (because it was clear from the discussion) that D...f has been appointed committer based on merit (and not technical necessity[1]).
>
> Patricia countered my answer by saying that it was the PMC's right (and necessity) to speak about some things in a non-public way.
>
> I didn't demand that the PMC speak publicly about pertsonal decisions, but it was clear that individual members of the PMC had publicly expressed their own opinions.
> It can be assumed that they have expressed exactly the same opinions in the non-public discussion at the PMC.
>
>
> And what did I dislike about Patricia's statement?
> My _feeling_ was that Patricia overemphasized the PMC's right to non-public discussion, probably because they think I deny that right.
>
> I assure you that I do not doubt this right at all.
>
> But at the same time this right is only a necessity and not our goal, because our goal is openness wherever possible.
> Is this difference unclear?
>
You want to discuss in public, whether a certain person became a
committer and another certain person did not.

How should that be discussed without talking about the individual
situation of that persons?

But there are very good reasons not to talk about individual
circumstances in public without the explicit approval of the concerned
person.

And it is nearly impossible to discuss an individual situation in public
in one case and not in other cases.

So the only sensible policy is not to discuss in public whether a
certain person became a committer and another certain person did not.

You publish strong accusations not based on facts, but on conjectures.

But even that approach will not force the members of the PMC to talk in
public about things, which must not be discussed in public!

We all know that you suspect the PMC, but that is not a new cognition.
As a PMC member I can live with distrust and speculations.

Jörg, afaik you are a committer, so why you act in that way in strange
concerns?

IMO this does not improve the image or the performance of our project.

Kind regards
Michael



signature.asc (201 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Decisions and Behavior

Jörg Schmidt-2
Hello,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 10:35 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Decisions and Behavior

> You want to discuss in public, whether a certain person became a
> committer and another certain person did not.

No, I don't want that.

I'm here criticizing a decision of the PMC that I don't like.

By the way, my criticism was effective (why, I am probably not allowed to say here in public, so I won't say anything)

> You publish strong accusations not based on facts, but on conjectures.

An opinion is not an accusation!

Michael, I may ask you for moderation here, there were no accusations.

> But even that approach will not force the members of the PMC
> to talk in
> public about things, which must not be discussed in public!

Above all, this is not my intention at all!

> We all know that you suspect the PMC, but that is not a new cognition.
> As a PMC member I can live with distrust and speculations.

Michael, maybe we should discuss this in German, because I'm not sure which translation of "suspect" here corresponds to your opinion.

> Jörg, afaik you are a committer, so why you act in that way in strange
> concerns?

Excuse me, but I'm not sure how to translate this sentence linguistically exactly.

I criticized something I felt was unfair. The admissibility of this criticism does not depend on how the person concerned thinks.



Gruß
Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Decisions and Behavior

Rory O'Farrell
Please take this discussion off a public list.

You all need to agree to differ and SHUT UP, at least on a public list!

--
Rory O'Farrell <[hidden email]>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Decisions and Behavior

Jörg Schmidt-2
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rory O'Farrell [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 11:22 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Decisions and Behavior
>
> Please take this discussion off a public list.
>
> You all need to agree to differ and SHUT UP, at least on a
> public list!

_In the present situation I will gladly comply with your wish_, but I will take
the liberty of making the observation:

on public lists all topics may be discussed _which do *not* violate the rules of
the project_. This includes criticism.



greetings,
Jorg



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]