James Cox wrote:
>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. >
+1.
Greg, you make -- as always -- some very fine points, however Morgan has really pointed it out here. This is an important issue, but sometimes it's nice to have a general forum to gauge opinion :)
Don't know if you guys are familiar with the architectural concept of 'Inversion of Control' (IoC).
If not, please read
http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/framework/guide-patterns-ioc.html
This is also called 'the hollywood principle': don't call us, we call you.
The ASF adopts the pattern of IoC when proposing new members: that means: one gets called only when voted in. Otherwise, life continues with no problems.
This allows, for example, resolutions like "I think he/she is not ready yet". I would personally be very pissed if somebody told me that I'm not ready *yet*, because if they assume I will be, then why don't they vote me in now? and maybe that impatient attitude is exactly what they want me to learn.
I think Sam is mistaken thinking that openess = better and committers nomination = members nomination always.
So, I think we should stick with the old IoC nomination model of members proposing a committer on [EMAIL PROTECTED], and, if voted in, presented the membership here on community@ and, if voted out, keeping this silent.
But I might well be wrong.
-- Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------
