Luke Faraone <lfara...@debian.org> writes: > The rationale given when I joined as ftpassistant (c. 2012) for not > publicising decisions e.g. in the ITP was to avoid publishing > potentially harshly-worded and embarassing reviews to maintainers in > public (like pointing out that you missed a fairly obvious license > declaration, incompatibility, or packaging step). > > I am welcome to feedback from the project as to whether this outweighs > the benefit to having past decisions available for public consultation.
If the price for the ability to learn from the mistakes of others is an occasional dose of public humiliation, then that's a price I'm happy to pay (and I speak as someone that has a talent for making trivial errors). Also, we claim in the Debian Social Contract that we don't hide problems. How about if the (possibly harsh) reasoning were published in a form that only directly tied it to the package name, such that search engines would not instantly and permanently place that comment on one's CV? I'd imagine that the stigma of a rejection would pretty quickly become an understanding that everyone makes mistakes occasionally, which may be a good way of avoiding new contributors becoming intimidated by the assumption that everyone else is doing a perfect job. Cheers, Phil. -- Philip Hands -- https://hands.com/~phil
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
