On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 12:04:35PM -0800, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
> --- Sander Striker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > From: Morgan Delagrange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: 28 October 2002 20:36
> >
> > >> Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The problem with nominations in a forum that does
> > >> not perfectly match the voting body is that it makes it
> > >> difficult to hold discussions about the nominee in a fair way.
> > >> Nominations, IMNSHO, belong on the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I completely agree. Much in the same way that committer access and PMC
membership is voted on within the PMC confines.
> > > I can't speak for Ted, but I don't mind, fire away.
> > > I'm pretty thick-skinned, and I'm curious to see what
> > > goes into the evaluation process. If you're really
> > > concerned about keeping your opinion on me private,
> > > you can post it to members instead, but I assure you
> > > that I'm OK with criticism.
> > >
> > > In fact, I'd rather be turned down in public and know
> > > why then get turned down "in absentia". :)
Actually, it has *very* little to do with how you feel, but what happens to
the entire community when something like this occurs.
> > It is not only for the nominee but also for the voting body.
> > When someone other than a fellow voter is looking at you
> > expectantly, people tend to act differently. [Try stuffing
> > a camera in someones face and see if you can spot behaviour
> > changes.]
> >
> > In a sense this is influencing the voting body, whether positive
> > or negative doesn't matter, it's inappropiate IMO.
Yup.
>...
> I'd stop short of saying that using a public forum is
> "inappropriate", but I think you've correctly
> identified some disadvantages.
Oh, Sander hasn't even come close :-)
The problem with discussing people in public is that it is *extremely*
divisive and polarizing to the community. No matter how well-intentioned it
may be, or how thick the recipient's skin is... such a discussion *creates*
factions within the community.
Let's say that I came out and said, "Morgan? Oh, I don't think so. The
postings that I've seen from him do not mesh well with the long-term ideals
of what the ASF is all about. He represents himself and his community in
Jakarta Commosn, but isn't concerned about the ASF except to give him more
protection for his corner of the world."
What would happen?
* you're okay with it. no problem.
* people who know you now take a couple actions
- they put themselves into the "pro-Morgan" camp and me in the
"anti-Morgan" camp.
- where I stated an opinion, they now turn it into a debate on your merits
and the list devolves into "but look at what Morgan has done" or "see
how he has contributed" while I was only trying to state an opinion on
what I had seen
* people who aren't familiar with the situation place themselves into the
"oh, whatever" camp and start dropping the debators into the other camps.
* people who agree with my position "align themselves" with my opinion,
again creating factions
- if they post a support email for me, then the other members of the
community place that support into the anti-Morgan camp
- and we're back to the spin/discussion on your merits/anti-merits
* BIG ITEM: my quote above was merely an example. but I *EDITED* the damned
thing. I didn't even realize it until I got to this part of my email. the
original hypothesis was that it would be posted in a public forum. my
original text was "Morgan? oh, fuck that. ..." but while writing that, I
thought, "oh. this is for a public forum, so I wouldn't have phrased it so
strongly. let me tone down the example." thus, my supposed, original
motivations against you have been toned down. the other readers are not
going to get the full brunt of my opinion because I had to tone it down
for a public forum.
and this is just an *example*... what if it were real?
* future opinions are now muddied. people in the pro-Morgan camp will always
take my words with an bad highlight over them. "oh, he doesn't like
Morgan. he has bad opinions." or when we have a technical debate, people
will question, "is this truly a technical debate, or is this based on his
original anti-morgan stance?"
> I'd offer two potential advantages in response: 1)
> members can pose questions directly to the candidate,
Always possible. A public forum is not necessary for this. As Pier stated in
another email, he spoke with Justin via IRC. Stuff like that and emails are
quite doable. The posting of a nomination and discussion about the pros/cons
of a person in public does not create any particular advantage for talking
with the nominee.
> and 2) other non-members get to see what goes into the
> selection process. I'd say the second is the more
> significant. We've already asserted that member
> selection is qualitative in nature and varies from
> case-to-case. By debating on a forum available to
> other committers, non-members can witness some of the
> selection criteria as they evolve.
Yes, for better or worse, it is a highly subjective process which means
there is really no way to extract useful rules.
But "debate" is an awful thing to get into when you're talking about a
person. It is the single-most and quickest way to create divisiveness,
factions, and polarization within a community.
Sorry, but nominations for membership, commit status, or PMC membership
really should be private. I absolutely will not participate in such an
environment, and will encourage others to avoid it also. These kinds of
discussions really don't enhance the community.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
