Re: [WG: Social Media] Proposed - Social Media working group

[Slawomir Jaranowski]

Hi,

Thanks for the idea ...

Some time ago we discuss on Maven slack channel who can publish message
behalf of ASF like announcements about new releases

Clear rules for ASF wide and for project accounts will be appreciated.

pt., 9 lut 2024 o 14:55 Rich Bowen  napisał(a):

> This one’s pretty simple. We need folks who will figure out how to
> maintain our social media presence, and that of our projects, more
> effectively. We are currently not doing awesome at this - at best, we’re
> inconsistent. At our worst, we are sending out messaging that is not
> aligned with the Foundation’s messaging, and that can be harmful, longer
> term.
>
> I’ve included the proposed charter below, and at
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/comdev/community/wg-social-media/README.md
> 
>
> I don’t think this one is controversial, but I think that putting some
> more structure around this, and having a group that sets direction,
> process, membership criteria, and so on, would greatly improve our outreach.
>
> Note that this group MUST defer to MarkPub on all things, so we can’t just
> blaze ahead until they have had their input here.
>
>
>
> # Social Media Working Group (Proposed)
>
> Use social media to promote Apache communities
>
> ## What
>
> Use the @apachecommunity Twitter account, Facebook, LinkedIn, and other
> social media outlets to promote Apache communities.
>
> Work with projects to better facilitate their own social media outlets,
> and to share Foundation-wide messaging, where appropriate.
>
> Work with MarkPub to ensure that all of the above is done correctly, and
> on-message with the rest of the community.
>
> ## Who
>
> The WG shall create membership criteria that ensure that you're enabling
> people who can responsibly, consistently, positively and coherently be
> spokespeople for the ASF. Possibly work with MarkPub to establish some
> kind of guidelines or certification?
>
>
> —
> Rich Bowen
> rbo...@rcbowen.com
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Sławomir Jaranowski

Re: [WG: Sharpeners] Proposed - Sharpeners

[Phil Steitz]

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 7:07 AM Rich Bowen  wrote:

> Yes that's probably a good improvement. My one concern is that one
> shouldn't have to be a technical expert in the project to do this work, so
> careful wording is necessary.
>

Agreed on the no need to be an expert on the code, but they will need to
become expert on the community to be effective and projects *should* be
having how-things-work kind of discussions on their public lists.  This is
similar to how mentors work in the incubator.  Many don't really dig into
or understand podling code, but they do observe processes, how votes are
run, what goes into releases, etc.  All of that kind of thing should be
public.

I am working on a PR to take a stab at tweaking the wording.  I am also
playing with some ideas around use cases - kinds of things sharpeners will
work on.  I think it's really a good idea to get some rough consensus on
what is in/out of scope before we start this.

Phil

>
> Rich
>
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2024, 20:49 Phil Steitz  wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Rich.  I think we have been headed in this direction for some
> time
> > now and something like this is needed.  Many thanks for coming up with a
> > concrete proposal.
> >
> > I have one suggestion for improvement, which is in part a problem
> > statement.  Instead of just subscribing to the private@ list, I would
> > suggest that Sharpeners also subscribe to and even engage primarily on
> the
> > dev@ list.  The problem statement part of this is that having influence
> > "behind the curtain" of privacy runs counter to transparency, especially
> if
> > that influence is on how the project is run.  It's been a while since I
> > have been on the board, but I remember often pointing to discussions on
> > private lists that should be public. I don't think its a good idea to
> have
> > general discussion about how things are done in a project on private
> lists
> > and having the Sharpeners engage exclusively there might encourage more
> of
> > that.  I think its a best practice to post draft board reports to dev
> lists
> > and relay board feedback there.  I know a lot of projects do that.  That
> > way, the community understands the thought process and can lead whatever
> > change is needed, rather than being surprised by it.   When I look back
> on
> > successful "sharpenings" in the past, the real work generally happened on
> > the project lists, with only very sensitive or individual people-related
> > things being worked out on private lists.
> >
> > It might be a good idea to look at some historical examples and tease
> out a
> > little more what exactly "sharpening" is going to be.  If it is primarily
> > (re-)education or community transformation, that really does need to be
> > public and community-based.  If its more admin / legal / policy
> compliance,
> > that fits with the private engagement of the PMC model.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:55 AM Rich Bowen  wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, this one probably requires a LOT of discussion, but it’s something
> > > I’ve been thinking about for more than a year, so if some of this seems
> > > like I’ve already wordsmithed it, that’s why.
> > >
> > > Projects go through the Incubator, learn how to Apache, and then they
> > move
> > > on. The membership changes. The mission changes. The world changes
> around
> > > them. And the lessons of the Incubator are often forgotten, or deemed
> > > unimportant to the changed circumstances.
> > >
> > > This Working Group provides a mechanism for ASF Members to assist the
> > > board in advising projects. (See the FAQ, “Why a member?” before
> > objecting
> > > to this. I am very firm on this point, and I believe that the board
> will
> > be
> > > too, if asked.
> > >
> > > I want to STRENUOUSLY encourage you to read the entire proposal before
> > > responding, because I have foreseen a number of objections to this,
> most
> > of
> > > which go under the heading of “who are YOU to tell US what to do?!” I
> am
> > > very cognizant of this. ComDev is a PEER to other projects, not in a
> > > position of authority. That said, every member is responsible, to a
> > certain
> > > degree, for the direction the entire Foundation takes.
> > >
> > > I believe that this effort, if successful, could be hugely influential
> in
> > > the trajectory of the ASF in the coming years. I believe that this is,
> at
> > > heart, the primary mission of ComDev. I feel very strongly about the
> > > importance of this working group. I will be glad to hold forth at
> greater
> > > length over beer and/or scotch, at the next event facilitated by
> > wg-social.
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > > Anyways, please read
> > >
> >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/comdev/community/wg-sharpeners/README.md
> > > and then think a little bit and then let me know what you think.
> > >
> > > Proposal also included below for convenience.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > # Sharpeners Work Group (Proposed)
> > >
> > > To provide "Sharpeners" - vol