Hi Bill, On May 30, 2007, at 11:37 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:o The podling's developer list, with notice posted to the Incubatorgeneral list. The notice is a separate email forwarding the vote emailwith a cover statement that this vote is underway on the podling'sdeveloper 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 enoughincubator PMC members vote and have to be solicited to vote for a committer.I'm strongly against this.
I'm sorry I can't tell what you are against, even after reading the following.
Are you suggesting that we should no ever recommend this as a possible option?
Craig
If you think it's to spare embarrassment, you missed the issue.The issue is that it is unnecessarily hostile and confrontational to haveto reject a committer on a public list.
That's why I included "This is a good approach if you are <strong>sure</strong> of getting the
required three +1 votes from incubator PMC members". Are you suggesting that this approach is never good? Regards, Craig
So one of two things happen whenthere 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 whichis 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 tothe 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]
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
