openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andreas Nauerz" <andreas.nau...@de.ibm.com>
Subject Re: How to continue to use our social media channels
Date Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:56:59 GMT
Hey guys,

I was just about to formalize the publications processes we have recently 
talked about.

When going through the checklist I came across this point again:

[] Does the content clearly come from an individual who's actively 
involved in Apache OpenWhisk?
As opposed to coming from a vendor or organization.

Does content really need to come from an individual actively involved in 
Apache OpenWhisk?
What if someone who has, so far, not been actively involved but has 
something to say that is obviously of high interest; what if someone shows 
an interesting OpenWhisk use-case/scenario, architecture, or how he/she is 
using OpenWhisk in production... 

Hence, I would like to "ease" this requirement by saying something like:

[] Is the content clearly of general interest with the aim to promote 
Apache OpenWhisk by demonstrating its strengths & value (by talking about 
use-cases, architectures, patterns, in-production usage, ...) in contrast 
to do advertisment for anything being commercial?

I also would say that it is fine if a vendor is asking to publish 
something as long as it also promotes Apache OpenWhisk and as long as it 
isn't something that must be considered advertisement for the vendor's 
commercial platform. In addition each vendor must follow been the same 
rights and duties...

Otherwise we will end-up in multiple medium, twitter, youtube, etc. 
channels for OpenWhisk, one (for each channel) for Apache OpenWhisk and 
one (for each channel) for each vendor... way too many sources of truth 
that would lower our power of impact...

Agreed?

Thanks.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards

Dr. Andreas Nauerz

Technical Product Manager | Master Inventor | Member TEC Central Region
IBM Cloud, Bluemix





Phone:
+49-7034-643-2954
 IBM Deutschland


E-Mail:
andreas.nauerz@de.ibm.com
 Schoenaicher Str. 220



 71032 Boeblingen



 Germany





IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH / Vorsitzender des 
Aufsichtsrats: Martina Köderitz 
Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, 
HRB 243294





From:   Andreas Nauerz/Germany/IBM
To:     dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Date:   14/06/2017 23:08
Subject:        Re: How to continue to use our social media channels


Thanks, Matt.
 
a)
#2:
I agree, that one was/is redundant - even if we add a submission form 
later it would be send to the private list.
Will remove it.
 
#3:
Fine with me; good to have at least someone feeling responsible once I am 
out ;)
 
#4:
For medium articles that may be fine, but tweets are usually time-critical 
and lose their value if you hold them back; that is why I would agree for 
everything except tweets where I would auto-approve if I or my backup is 
fine (can be deleted again worst case).
 
#5 will be added in addition to what Bertrand already suggested prior.
 
c)-e)
Perfect.
sth=something ;)
 
f)
What do we do with this one now?
 
I am going to document this process (wiki) next week when I am back from 
traveling.
 
Thanks.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards

Dr. Andreas Nauerz

Technical Product Manager | Master Inventor | Member TEC Central Region
IBM Cloud, Bluemix





Phone:
+49-7034-643-2954
 IBM Deutschland


E-Mail:
andreas.nauerz@de.ibm.com
 Schoenaicher Str. 220



 71032 Boeblingen



 Germany





IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH / Vorsitzender des 
Aufsichtsrats: Martina Köderitz 
Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, 
HRB 243294






From:   "Matt Rutkowski" <mrutkows@us.ibm.com>
To:     dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Date:   14/06/2017 16:33
Subject:        Re: How to continue to use our social media channels



Hi Andreas,

> a) Is the process outlined above okay for all of you?> 

The process sounds well thought out.  thoughts/comments below...

#2 seems redundant since the request will go to the "private" list (which 
includes all PPMC members); were you thinking special attention was needed 

beyond this?
Perhaps this means one of the PPMC members acknowledges and speaks in 
for/against, calls for discussion (and perhaps a vote later if needed).
#3 I would be happy to be a designated "backup", but all PPMC should 
effectively be tertiary backups )
#4 I think that if the checklist is satisfied by one of the reviewers for 
a submission, they could send an email to "private" (i.e., PPMC) indicated 

"looks good, going to approve/post in X (24) hours if no one objects and 
we need to further discuss and (if not resolved) call a vote?

add of course
#5 If PPMC cannot agree, seek advice from the Apache Incubator PMC (and 
perhaps Apache legal/trademark where we would likely be sent if it comes 
to this).

> c) Who wants to help with implementing the submission form?> 

I can try to help; would be fun to see the insides of the website repo. 
having built and deployed it locally only to update some esoteric 
layouts/css.

> d) Who wants to act as a backup while I am out?>     o/  (raises hand)

> e) Is the idea of using our private mailing list as temp solution fine > 



It is what happens anyway now (without a FORM and its structured fields). 
So fine by me... in fact, we would need to consider the FORM supporting 
attachments or have the submitter supply a link to some doc store.

> (can anyone send sth to this?)?>  was afraid to ask, but what is "sth" (
Stash file type?)?

> f) What do we want to use to share credentials? SVN, Lastpass, sth 
else?> I think that is for the PPMC to discuss?


- Matt








Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/related (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message