Speaking of being unnecessarily hostile and confrontational, thanks for bagging Jakarta.
FWIW, The most recent Jakarta committer votes have been conducted in private, and what you describe is not a current Jakarta practice. Where are Noel's comments about bad Jakarta practice? I had a quick look through my recent emails from Noel, but couldn't find any. Regards, Dion On 5/31/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote: > > o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubator > general list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote email > with a cover statement that this vote is underway on the podling's > developer list. This is a good approach if you are sure of getting the > required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members. It is embarrassing > to have a public vote fail or take a very long time because not enough > incubator PMC members vote and have to be solicited to vote for a > committer. I'm strongly against this. If you think it's to spare embarrassment, you missed the issue. The issue is that it is unnecessarily hostile and confrontational to have to reject a committer on a public list. So one of two things happen when there is a valid reason to reject the nomination - either the list becomes hostile and you alienate a contributor who might be voted in with simply another month or two of participation, or the objection goes unstated which is bad for the health and progress of the project. Voting on-list is a bad thing for the project; not a bad thing to do to the nominee. This is another artifact from Jakarta practice, which Noel had some observations about earlier today :) Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- dIon Gillard Rule #131 of Acquisition: Information is Profit.
