Hey Greg, --- Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Probably. I think I was just responding to a specific statement from Ken, where he said he wanted to spare the rod. > > > 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." LOL! Love the example. OK, so let's suppose that your opinion is that "Morgan" isn't concerned with the ASF except insofar as it protects his subproject... > What would happen? > > * you're okay with it. no problem. Unlikely. "Morgan" might respect your opinion, but I suspect he'll defend his position. The way in which he defends that position is as important as the message he tries to convey. > * people who know you now take a couple actions > - they put themselves into the "pro-Morgan" camp > and me in the > "anti-Morgan" camp. Quite possible. At which point you would explain that you're not "anti-Morgan" per se, but only that you're not sure he's right for ASF membership. Then you'd explain that ASF members are "dedicated, long-term" participants in the Apache Way, and you'd explain in more detail why Morgan doesn't get it. Then Morgan would probably say something about how much he respects Greg's opinions and supports his right to it, and then no doubt spout some drivel supporting his position and explain away his ignorance of the Apache Way. OR... Morgan would explode and the voting members would say, "wow, this guy doesn't look like he's very reasonable." If members have reservations about a candidate, how can they allay these fears without seeing the candidate "in action", so to speak? > - 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 Aren't Morgan's contributions valid to the discussion? Actions speak louder than words, after all. Of course, that doesn't make your opinion invalid either, and I'd expect that you'd defend it vigorously. > * people who aren't familiar with the situation > place themselves into the > "oh, whatever" camp and start dropping the > debators into the other camps. That's inevitable, whether or not the discussion happens on members. Most of the members will not have worked with the candidate. Actually, this reorg list is the only cross-project discussion most of us non-members have ever seen, and I think it's doing a lot of good for that reason. > * 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 Sure the discussion might get a little heated. But we're talking about ASF membership here, it's a big deal. Be tough. If a candidate can't support his credentials without resorting to insults and tirades, what kind of ASF member would he be? > * 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. I think you tone it down not just because of the public forum, but because you have to make an argument to which the candidate can respond. I think that's positive. If you had actually said "Morgan? oh, fuck that. ...", I'd hope other members would say, "syntax error, please refrase in the form of constructive criticism". > 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?" That's possible. I've worked on several Jakarta subprojects, all of which conduct committer nominations _exclusively_ in public forums. Arguments over nominations have been so infrequent that I cannot actually recall a single instance. There is the infamous incident where someone (I forget who) vetoed a committer nomination on Tomcat. I don't work on that subproject, but had I been there at the time, I would have defended that person's right to his opinion, even if I disagreed with the opinion itself. > > 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. Good point. > > 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 You make a lot of good points. Let me be devil's advocate and make a couple explicit points that I think you imply above: 1) ASF membership is very important 2) ASF membership is more likely to be contentious than other decisions for that reason Perhaps some middle ground could be reached? A public discussion on merits followed by a private debate? Leave the decision of whether or not to address the candidate directly to each member? Maybe at the end of the day, the community list is the wrong place for the ultimate resolution of the process, but it may be a useful auxiliary tool. - Morgan ===== Morgan Delagrange http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs http://jakarta.apache.org/commons http://axion.tigris.org http://jakarta.apache.org/watchdog __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
