On 6/1/26 09:07, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
Hi
Am 2026-06-01 15:49, schrieb Ben Ramsey:
At least 4 messages raised concerns about the naming of the roles:
1. "I'm not sure I like the notion or language of 'hands-off' vs.
'hands-on' release managers." [1]
2. "I disagree with designating whether anyone is 'hands-on' or
'hands-off.'" [1]
3. "I still dislike the distinction of 'hands-on' and 'hands-off' as
descriptors for these roles and disagree with their use in defining
these roles." [2]
4. "If we can come up with better terminology around the roles [...]
then I'll probably change my vote to a 'yes.'" [2]
5. "I've been thinking more about the terminology and have come up
with a concrete suggestion." [3]
6. "I agree with Ben, I would prefer 'Veteran Release Manager' / 'Co-
release Manager' over 'hands on' / 'hands off'. The 'hands off' sounds
negative to me." [4]
(1), (2), and (3) were concerns with regard to the policy itself, not
the terminology used. For (4) you elided the relevant part during,
namely “and make the roles less about their level of involvement”, which
is also a concern regarding the policy itself. And similarly the email
that contained quote (5) also mentions “I don't want to define the roles
around involvement”, which is a concern regarding the policy itself and
(6) is in direct agreement of that without adding anything by itself.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
Since I wrote three of those messages, I should like to think I know
what my own concerns were. The meaning of my statements can be both
about the terminology _and_ the policy. These concerns aren't mutually
exclusive.
I chose my words carefully. I referred to the "language" and used the
words "designating," "descriptors," and "terminology," all of which are
specific to the naming.
As for "eliding the relevant part," for the quotation, I was only
focusing on the part that discussed the naming, but it looks like you
did not consider that relevant.
Cheers,
Ben
