incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r178965 - /incubator/public/trunk/site-author/learn/newcommitters.html
Date Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:27:38 GMT
At 05:42 AM 7/7/2005, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>On Jul 6, 2005, at 3:42 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
>>IMHO, the idea of discussing the vote on the PMC list and then having
>>the vote on the dev@ list sounds better on paper than in practice. In
>>practice, the discussion becomes the vote, and creating a second
>>thread on the DEV list is just going through the motions.
>Some times it is better for the public to see us "go through the
>motions", and thereby get a handle on how we make decisions.
>In particular, I believe that the public vote provides benefits
>when people have to earn status as a committer.  I don't see it
>as useful when commit access is handed out like candy.

As much as I agree that incubator is a good place for new people
to see the dirty laundry, observe the nuances of participation, 
and learn the normal project flow...

>Perhaps we could change it to private votes and a slightly more
>formal process for the announcement (along with a suggestion that
>the existing committers congratulate the newbie in public)?

...and I agree that we should trumpet new committers...

>[...]  I think that forbidding a project from making official 
>decisions in private has benefits far beyond either form of 
>committer votes.

...and I agree that no project decisions should be invisible
to the wider community...

...I disagree that people/personality decisions are productive 
or easily resolved on a public list.  I'm a believer that you
praise in public, chastise in private, and there's too much
opportunity 1) for such processes to become a flogging, or 
2) for valid criticism to go unsaid due to politics or a desire
not to be critical on a public forum.

>Right now I see this process as a mixed bag that is made much
>harder by the disjoint between the incubator PMC and the incubated
>projects' private lists.  I wonder what would happen if we made
>a single "private@incubator" list for all the podlings instead
>of the separate ppmc lists?

or ppmc@incubator (until we rename these to private across the ASF).

I'll give a huge +1 to your idea though.  I agree that only people
discussions and confidential negotiations belong on private@,
and by watching other ppmc's grapple with these issues, all of our
incubating projects will learn from one another.

Before anyone objects due to the S/N ratio of such a combined
list, remember it will let few mentors monitor more activities,
and posts to private@ should be (and usually are) short, and
to the point.  If not, it's probably a dev@ discussion.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message