Hi, I agree with Caty on this. Voting someone a committer is an important event, it's a acknowledgement of her value by fellow community members. In addition to this, if an existing committer thinks that a proposed new committer does not provide work of a good enough quality to become a committer, I think that it's very important for the existing committer to articulate her judgement so that the potential new committer can improve and try again. In addition to this, it forces existing committers to argue in favor of and stand by their point of view.
The same is true when one wants to retire a committer or make her emeritus. If she disagrees, she should be able to debate her point of view in the open. Plus some members of the community outside existing committers might provide valuable feedback about a potential new committer. I also believe that you are raising a non-existing issue. In the 6+ years of existence of the XWiki community and using an open process to vote new committers, I have not heard even once anyone complaining about having an open process. Nor am I aware of any friction caused by this process. If anything, it only strengthens the authenticity and transparency of XWiki's Open-Source community. In contrast to this, having an opaque voting process opens the door to questioning from the outside world (was there backdoor discussions with regards to the vote of X? if not, why was the vote hidden?). Having a fully open public voting process reinforces the trust of every member in the community. Although I agree that security-related issues are a valid exception, I don't think that it's the case for voting new committers. Thus I'm (non-binding) -1 on this new proposal (about which I maybe would not even have been able to talk if that policy was put in place). Guillaume On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) < [email protected]> wrote: > Not very sure about it. > > And how do we announce the new commiter that he has been voted? Are we > still > making the announcement public? > The feeling of being voted is very nice, you get a picture of the people > that appreciate what you do. Letting this go would be a pitty and if we are > not removing this part then it means we are gonna duplicate the vote. > > Also the voting process is usually initiated by an existing commiter. IMO > the initiator is responsible to assure he is proposing someone who will be > accepted without problems. Until now people that didn't agreed with > something (or didn't had enough information about the topic) they didn't > vote. Because our number is increasing I propose to increase the needed > votes to pass the proposal from 3 to 5+, or why not even half+1 in > important > cases, like this one. > > IMO, we either do everything public or not. So doing a private list just > for > this purpose is not sufficient IMO and is also a not very encountered case. > > Thanks, > Caty > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 16:16, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 10, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: > > > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > There are a few topics that are not supposed to be public or that would > > be better be not public. > > > > > > One such topic is when we want to VOTE someone as a committer. It's > very > > uncomfortable to do this in the open for the following reasons: > > > * committers are tempted to VOTE +1 since voting negatively is seen > > publicly, including by the person being voted on > > > * it's very undelicate to have this in the open especially if the > person > > is voted down since that'll affect that person's morale and future > > participation in the project > > > > > > So I'd like to propose creating a [email protected] list with the > > following characteristics: > > > * private, visible only to committers > > > > So here are some use cases for this list: > > > > * voting in members > > * excluding members > > > > Any other topic you see? > > > > +1 from me. > > > > > I also propose it to use it for voting committers. > > > > +1 > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > Thanks > > > -Vincent > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
