Hi Vincent,
On 10.10.2011 21:47, Vincent Massol wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On Oct 10, 2011, at 8:55 PM, Alex Busenius wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> I'm -1 for the idea of moving votes about some selected topics to a >> secret mailing list. > > The proposal/vote is only about voting about committers on a private list. > ATM I don't see any other vote topics that would justify being done privately. Well, thats is enough IMO :) > >> The most important point of public votes is to provide transparency to >> the community, which not only consists of informing the community of >> secretly made decisions, but also explaining why those decisions were >> made and leaving a possibility for everyone to discuss and interact with >> the committers. Remember, that by our rules, anyone is allowed to vote, >> it's just that only the committers have a binding vote. > > Sure, we're not changing this. > Well, then the topic of this vote is wrong. >> I agree that choosing and excluding new committers are sensitive topics, >> so it makes sense to discuss such things in private first > > What's the point of a "fake" vote if f it's been discussed before? If we > discuss it privately and one of us is against it, we're not going to propose > it so if we propose a vote publicly it means we all agree so what's the point > of sending a vote? > The question whether a vote is "fake" IMO depends on what counts in the end. If we decide and then pretend as if we would vote, then yes, it is fake, we should better just write an announcement. There is a difference whether we privately decide about something vs. we discuss something among us to have a feeling whether it is worth trying to vote and then publicly vote. Those 2 cases might look the same from the viewpoint of a committer, but they are definitely not the same for the others, and that is what counts. The difference is that in a public vote: 1. The final decision is not fallen yet 2. Some committers can change their mind after discussions with the community 3. It actually *involves* the community, although they have no binding veto etc. Besides, regarding the fact that 90% of committers are XWiki SAS employees, we should try not to make a wrong impression that the company leaders influence the decisions behind the scenes. > I don't see any interest in saying something like: "this person has been > voted in as a committer, please provide your feedback within 48 hours if you > think it's a bad idea!" > Or: "committers have agreed not to vote this person as a committer, please > provide arguments if you think committers should revise their judgements!" > I don't think we should post anything about candidates that didn't event make it to a vote (please note the difference to "we have agreed not to vote someone as committer"), it destroys the point of discussing it privately beforehand to not hurt someone's feelings. Thanks, Alex > Thanks > -Vincent > >> , but the >> actual vote should be public, with committers standing behind their >> votes and with enough time for others (i.e. for not-committers) to speak >> up and influence the vote. >> >> So I'm +0 for a private mailing list for sensitive topics (+0 because I >> don't see how contacting 15 people that are all in the same skype chat >> once a year is hard), but we should not vote there. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Alex >> >> >> On 10.10.2011 15:05, 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 >>> >>> I also propose it to use it for voting committers. >>> >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
