On Tue, April 25, 2006 1:38 pm, Greg Reddin said: > > On Apr 25, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Frank W. Zammetti wrote: > >> That depends entirely on your meaning of the word "closed". You >> make the >> argument that the number of new committers means it isn't closed, >> and I >> agree with you to a degree. But that's not the only meaning of >> "closed"... the invitations to those people came *soley* from the PMC >> AFAIK... the community had no say in it. That's the thing my proposal >> seeks to address, that the initiation of someone being invited doesn't >> necessarily have to come from those already there (although they would >> still have the final say-so). > > I have some serious concerns about this. Let me just use myself as > an example. I've been a committer for about 6 months or so. I have > absolutely no idea what sort of discussion took place before I > received that invitation. If there was someone among the PMC who was > vehemently opposed to my nomination I'm glad they had a confidential > forum in which to discuss their concerns. Now that I am a committer > I can have an unbiased conversation with anybody else in the group > without any preconceived notion of what that individual's opinion of > me might be. Truly, I don't have confidence that either user@ or > dev@ is a place where concerns can be expressed openly without fear > of unprofessional response. It's just too easy for this kind of > discussion to turn into personal attacks in a forum such as user@ or > even [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I actually echo your concerns, and it gave me a great deal of pause in writing the proposal. I certainly don't want to see any embarassment heaped on someone if it doesn't have to be. One of course hopes that even in a private forum, the debate is professional and not hurtful in any way (and I have every confidence that it always has been)... and I completely see your point about the lists... if anyone can comment, you never know who is going to say what, there isn't even the presumed air of professionalism that I'm sure is present when the committers consider someone privately. That being said, I think there is still a place for transparency... Ted I believe mentioned only recalling two nea votes over the years, and I would be interested in knowing why they were rejected, if for no other reason than to learn from it, learn what criteria are being used to decide, because if they were nominated in the first place, one has to assume there was sufficient merit on the surface in someone's eyes. > When Struts was a Jakarta subproject I remember committer votes > taking place on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I always felt just a little uneasy about > it. > 99 times out of 100 it was a unanimous +1 with no discussion. But I > seem to recall at least one case when concerns were expressed (sorry, > I don't remember the specifics, please correct me if I'm wrong). I > feel really bad that this person's personal merit would have to be > discussed in a public forum. I understand some others' concerns > about the community appearing to be closed, but I think there should > be a barrier to entry. Maybe it's too high, but it seems to me that > it should exist. After all it's basically a lifetime appointment and > revocations are very rare if one has ever happened at all. I don't at all disagree. I'm not advocating letting anyone in who wants in, I too agree there has to be a barrier to entry. And truthfully, I'm not even sure it's too high right now. I think this proposal would help ensure that it isn't though... it would also add some transparency to the process, which, even though I agree with your concerns, I feel is a good thing. Out of curiosity, does the idea of a nominee accepting a nomination before the PMC discusses and votes alleviate your concerns at all? And thanks for commenting! > Greg Frank --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
