> On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:01 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > <bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 1:08 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: >> ...I'd like to add a blurb "Your report should omit mentions to any >> potential committers, and instead mention that there are potential >> committers being considered.".. > > I'd make it more specific: > > "Please do not include the names of potential committers or PMC > members in your report, unless that's in <private> sections. Candidate > names should not be made public before people are actually elected. > > Or maybe just the first phrase of that if it's too long-
Since the Incubator reports are a public process in a wiki we don’t really have a process for <private> in Incubator podling reports. I see two possibilities. (1) Use whimsy tools. I think would increase the volume on private@ to board@ levels and we do not want that much heaviness in the IPMC where mentoring is the major goal. (2) Have PPMCs email the IPMC about <private> matters so that we can take these up and if warranted bring these to the Board’s attention in our Incubator report. So, I think we would need to have the phrase be as John suggests. We should revisit documentation about podling private issues and remind the PPMCs that they can reach out to private@incubator. (Examples could be a complaints about Mentors or personal community issues that are personal and that don’t think should be made in public.) Regards, Dave
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
