OK, let's go with keeping it on private@, despite my earlier curiosity. After I sent my email, I thought of another great reason to keep it private. If it were on public, then it would be easily searchable by recruiters/hiring managers/etc. who are not ASF members. I'd hate to find out that a committership discussion impacted someone's employment because of a hiring manager misinterpreting a no vote as some kind of black mark on an otherwise good engineer. To someone unfamiliar with how ASF works, these conversations could be misinterpreted.
--Chris Nauroth On 9/21/15, 10:46 AM, "Andrew Purtell" <[email protected]> wrote: >+1 > >Some advocate this as a way to force everyone into using objective >metrics, >under the assumption that less principled things happen, but I think the >drawbacks outweigh that: loss of candid feedback, hurt feelings after >public criticism, etc. > > >On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Allen Wittenauer <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> >> On Sep 19, 2015, at 10:51 PM, Nick Dimiduk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I'd be curious for an example community who handles discussions re: >>new >> > committers and PMC roles on the dev list. From what I've seen on other >> > projects, those conversations benefit from the level of discretion >> afforded >> > by having them on the private list. >> >> +1 on that. >> >> I don't think it's particularly beneficial weighing (effectively) >>people's >> future with a project publicly. The Internet never forgets. >> >> >> > > >-- >Best regards, > > - Andy > >Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein >(via Tom White)
