At 05:42 AM 7/7/2005, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >On Jul 6, 2005, at 3:42 AM, Ted Husted wrote: > >>IMHO, the idea of discussing the vote on the PMC list and then having >>the vote on the dev@ list sounds better on paper than in practice. In >>practice, the discussion becomes the vote, and creating a second >>thread on the DEV list is just going through the motions. > >Some times it is better for the public to see us "go through the >motions", and thereby get a handle on how we make decisions. >In particular, I believe that the public vote provides benefits >when people have to earn status as a committer. I don't see it >as useful when commit access is handed out like candy.
As much as I agree that incubator is a good place for new people to see the dirty laundry, observe the nuances of participation, and learn the normal project flow... >Perhaps we could change it to private votes and a slightly more >formal process for the announcement (along with a suggestion that >the existing committers congratulate the newbie in public)? ...and I agree that we should trumpet new committers... >[...] I think that forbidding a project from making official >decisions in private has benefits far beyond either form of >committer votes. ...and I agree that no project decisions should be invisible to the wider community... ...I disagree that people/personality decisions are productive or easily resolved on a public list. I'm a believer that you praise in public, chastise in private, and there's too much opportunity 1) for such processes to become a flogging, or 2) for valid criticism to go unsaid due to politics or a desire not to be critical on a public forum. >Right now I see this process as a mixed bag that is made much >harder by the disjoint between the incubator PMC and the incubated >projects' private lists. I wonder what would happen if we made >a single "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" list for all the podlings instead >of the separate ppmc lists? or [EMAIL PROTECTED] (until we rename these to private across the ASF). I'll give a huge +1 to your idea though. I agree that only people discussions and confidential negotiations belong on private@, and by watching other ppmc's grapple with these issues, all of our incubating projects will learn from one another. Before anyone objects due to the S/N ratio of such a combined list, remember it will let few mentors monitor more activities, and posts to private@ should be (and usually are) short, and to the point. If not, it's probably a dev@ discussion. Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
