Thats pretty much the way that things operate in projects I participate in aswell.
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:22, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > True, but it happened several times in the projects I supervised or > being part of, that committers seeked consensus privately exactly not to > influence the person. > > Nicola, for example (I'm citing this because he knows so no harm is > done), was proposed for commit access in a private multi-CCed email and > turned down by me since I thought he needed more time to 'tune' to how > things were working on the mail list. > > Note: publicly, I never had to turn down any committer and I think I > voted in several tens of them. > > Anyway, he was proposed for commit access a few months later and voted > in with no negative vote. He not only proved his skills, but the ability > to learn from his mistakes. > > If voted down pubblicly the first time, I have the impression that he > would have left, with big disadvantage of everyone, himself first. > > So, I think that proposing nominations in public does no harm if there > reasonable estimation that nobody would be against it. But, in any other > case, a private votation will serve the person nominated best. > > At least, that has been my experience. -- Cheers, Peter Donald *----------------------------------------------------------* The phrase "computer literate user" really means the person has been hurt so many times that the scar tissue is thick enough so he no longer feels the pain. -- Alan Cooper, The Inmates are Running the Asylum *----------------------------------------------------------*
