On Jul 6, 2005, at 5:21 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
I think I prefer the private vote, acceptance by the candidate, followed by a public announcement. Or else a pro forma vote which explicitly states 'only PMC members can vote.' (Which I don't think is a particularly community-building approach.) I think this is a particularly likely scenario when the voters-who-count != the project committers -- i.e., where the PMC != the committers. Those non-on-the-PMC committers are probably going to feel that their votes should count -- but they won't.
Well, now, whose fault is that? People who have the right to vote on a project had better be on the private list, since otherwise they won't be informed. I don't believe we should have PMC lists (only dev and private), which is why your scenario doesn't apply in my model of how a project works. In my model, the only time that PMC != committers is when a given person is provided commit access for a specific purpose and they should be informed of those limitations at that time. I understand the concerns, but I still feel that project decisions should always be made in public. How about if the vote takes place in private and the announcement includes the final vote naming those who voted? ....Roy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
