On 20 September 2012 07:45, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: > RGB ES wrote: >> >> 2012/9/19 Dennis E. Hamilton >>> >>> I recommend that the process continue. My only objection is that having >>> secret nominations is not compatible with the Apache Way ... >>> >>> I recommend that no one accept nominations privately and that those who >>> have already sent theirs via any back-channel use ooo-private > > > OK. The important thing is that the process can continue. It might well be > that nobody prefers to state his preferences in private (meaning: somewhere > else than ooo-dev): as I wrote, it was not a personal concern, I just > wondered if allowing it would increase participation in this nomination > phase (and at the same time I encouraged those, if any, who preferred secret > nominations/lists to speak up, and nobody did so far, which probably means I > was simply wrong and everybody is fine with public nominations/lists). > > >> +1 (Even if I see no point on hiding the vote). > > > I was going to answer that secret ballot is a basic principle, but indeed, > now that I think about it, it might be that there is no such thing as a > "secret ballot" in the Apache way, at least for normal operations... > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html does not mention this > possibility.
AFAIK that applies to code and releases only, not people. Once a PMC exists, new members must be nominated and discussed on the private@tlp list. Votes are held on the private list, so is not secret, but it is not public either. ASF members are nominated on the members list (and in members-only files). ASF member voting is secret. Board members are nominated on the members list. Voting is secret. > Good to know. But we can come back to this at a later stage and > let the current nomination phase continue. > > Regards, > Andrea.
