On Oct 10, 2011, at 11:08 PM, Alex Busenius wrote: > 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.
Actually the latest stats on this is 64% of *active* XWiki Core committers are from XWiki SAS. See http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Committers If Andreas is voted in, that'll make it 61% :) I like this trend, it's great. Thanks -Vincent >> 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
