Not very sure about it. And how do we announce the new commiter that he has been voted? Are we still making the announcement public? The feeling of being voted is very nice, you get a picture of the people that appreciate what you do. Letting this go would be a pitty and if we are not removing this part then it means we are gonna duplicate the vote. Also the voting process is usually initiated by an existing commiter. IMO the initiator is responsible to assure he is proposing someone who will be accepted without problems. Until now people that didn't agreed with something (or didn't had enough information about the topic) they didn't vote. Because our number is increasing I propose to increase the needed votes to pass the proposal from 3 to 5+, or why not even half+1 in important cases, like this one. IMO, we either do everything public or not. So doing a private list just for this purpose is not sufficient IMO and is also a not very encountered case. Thanks, Caty On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 16:16, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:

On Oct 10, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:

...

Hi devs,

There are a few topics that are not supposed to be public or that would be better be not public.

One such topic is when we want to VOTE someone as a committer. It's very uncomfortable to do this in the open for the following reasons: * committers are tempted to VOTE +1 since voting negatively is seen publicly, including by the person being voted on * it's very undelicate to have this in the open especially if the person is voted down since that'll affect that person's morale and future participation in the project

So I'd like to propose creating a [email protected] list with the following characteristics: * private, visible only to committers

So here are some use cases for this list:

* voting in members * excluding members

Any other topic you see?

+1 from me.

...

I also propose it to use it for voting committers.

+1

Thanks -Vincent

...

WDYT?

Thanks -Vincent

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi Guillaume, Your arguments are very valid and I've considered them a lot before sending my vote. Actually to be perfectly honest, I've been on the fence on this question for several years now. However I've been slightly more in favor of the private list idea lately (I think due to the fact that I've proposed quite a few committers. It's probably harder to understand if you haven't done so). See below for more details. On Oct 10, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:

Hi,

I agree with Caty on this. Voting someone a committer is an important event, it's a acknowledgement of her value by fellow community members. In addition to this, if an existing committer thinks that a proposed new committer does not provide work of a good enough quality to become a committer, I think that it's very important for the existing committer to articulate her judgement so that the potential new committer can improve and try again. In addition to this, it forces existing committers to argue in favor of and stand by their point of view.

The same is true when one wants to retire a committer or make her emeritus. If she disagrees, she should be able to debate her point of view in the open. Plus some members of the community outside existing committers might provide valuable feedback about a potential new committer.

I also believe that you are raising a non-existing issue. In the 6+ years of existence of the XWiki community and using an open process to vote new committers, I have not heard even once anyone complaining about having an open process. Nor am I aware of any friction caused by this process. If anything, it only strengthens the authenticity and transparency of XWiki's Open-Source community.

Actually this questions arises relatively frequently in open source communities (be it apache or elsewhere) and I've seen it raised several times in my 12-13 years of open source. The other reason you haven't experienced may be because you've not proposed committers yet. You haven't had to individually contact every one to make sure the vote will get accepted, convince people offline that it's a good choice, etc. Apparently you call this transparency… :) I don't. How many times have you seen people voting with restrictions on new members or even with -1? Answer: none How many times have you seen people voting with restrictions or even -1 or topics other than member voting? Answer: frequently Why? Because people are respectful and tend to shy away from telling someone in their face that they just sucks, or that they're too junior even with 15 years of experience… ;) My proposal is just to make voting a new member a real voting process. Actually you're forgetting one part which is one issue IMO. Let me give you an example. Imagine that I've seen that XXX has a good level of understanding of the xwiki platform and that he's submitted several patches in the past and I think he would be a good addition to the committers to the xwiki project. Right now I have 2 choices: * Send a VOTE email on the devs list. Two possibilities: ** he's accepted. Now I need to ask him if he's interested. If not, then the vote was for nothing ** he's not accepted. Now XXX sees this. Maybe someone said that he needs to provides more patches before he can be accepted or that his patches have some issues, etc. On one hand it's good since he now knows what he should improve, OTOH depending on how well-phrased or not the negative answers were, he'll feel let down and make simply stop participating to the project completely * Ask the potential committer if he'd be willing to become a committer (with all the committer duties - see committership on dev.xwiki.org). ** if he says yes and he's not accepted that sucks since you had increased his expectations and he's going to feel he's been let down or that his work is not appreciated, etc ** if he says no, then no issues. No vote is started. However others don't know about it. The solution I'm proposing is to send a mail on the committers@ list. If he's voted ok then we can contact him and ask him if he's interested in becoming a committer. If he's voted down no harm is done. Now I've always hesitated on this topic since I've seen arguments on both sides of the fence. I also agree that ideally it would be best done in the open if it could work but it doesn't IMO because of the way human relations work. People don't tell other people what they think of them in front of their face. Here's what Karl Fogel says in his book: "Producing open source software: how to run a successful free software project": http://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html " […] The voting system itself should be used to choose new committers, both full and partial. But here is one of the rare instances where secrecy is appropriate. You can't have votes about potential committers posted to a public mailing list, because the candidate's feelings (and reputation) could be hurt. Instead, the usual way is that an existing committer posts to a private mailing list consisting only of the other committers, proposing that someone be granted commit access. The other committers speak their minds freely, knowing the discussion is private. Often there will be no disagreement, and therefore no vote necessary. After waiting a few days to make sure every committer has had a chance to respond, the proposer mails the candidate and offers him commit access. If there is disagreement, discussion ensues as for any other question, possibly resulting in a vote. For this process to be open and frank, the mere fact that the discussion is taking place at all should be secret. If the person under consideration knew it was going on, and then were never offered commit access, he could conclude that he had lost the vote, and would likely feel hurt. Of course, if someone explicitly asks for commit access, then there is no choice but to consider the proposal and explicitly accept or reject him. If the latter, then it should be done as politely as possible, with a clear explanation: "We liked your patches, but haven't seen enough of them yet," or "We appreciate all your patches, but they required considerable adjustments before they could be applied, so we don't feel comfortable giving you commit access yet. We hope that this will change over time, though." Remember, what you're saying could come as a blow, depending on the person's level of confidence. Try to see it from their point of view as you write the mail. […] "

In contrast to this, having an opaque voting process opens the door to questioning from the outside world (was there backdoor discussions with regards to the vote of X? if not, why was the vote hidden?). Having a fully open public voting process reinforces the trust of every member in the community. Although I agree that security-related issues are a valid exception, I don't think that it's the case for voting new committers.

Thus I'm (non-binding) -1 on this new proposal (about which I maybe would not even have been able to talk if that policy was put in place).

The goal is not to decide to put other VOTEs on this private list. Only for committer voting. Thanks -Vincent

Guillaume

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) < [email protected]> wrote:

...

Not very sure about it.

And how do we announce the new commiter that he has been voted? Are we still making the announcement public? The feeling of being voted is very nice, you get a picture of the people that appreciate what you do. Letting this go would be a pitty and if we are not removing this part then it means we are gonna duplicate the vote.

Also the voting process is usually initiated by an existing commiter. IMO the initiator is responsible to assure he is proposing someone who will be accepted without problems. Until now people that didn't agreed with something (or didn't had enough information about the topic) they didn't vote. Because our number is increasing I propose to increase the needed votes to pass the proposal from 3 to 5+, or why not even half+1 in important cases, like this one.

IMO, we either do everything public or not. So doing a private list just for this purpose is not sufficient IMO and is also a not very encountered case.

Thanks, Caty

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 16:16, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Oct 10, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:

...

Hi devs,

There are a few topics that are not supposed to be public or that would be better be not public.

One such topic is when we want to VOTE someone as a committer. It's

very

...

uncomfortable to do this in the open for the following reasons:

...

* committers are tempted to VOTE +1 since voting negatively is seen publicly, including by the person being voted on * it's very undelicate to have this in the open especially if the person is voted down since that'll affect that person's morale and future participation in the project

So I'd like to propose creating a [email protected] list with the following characteristics: * private, visible only to committers

So here are some use cases for this list:

* voting in members * excluding members

Any other topic you see?

+1 from me.

...

I also propose it to use it for voting committers.

+1

Thanks -Vincent

...

WDYT?

Thanks -Vincent

Hi Caty, On Oct 10, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) wrote:

Not very sure about it.

And how do we announce the new commiter that he has been voted? Are we still making the announcement public?

Yes, we have http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/HallOfFame anyway. It's public information.

The feeling of being voted is very nice, you get a picture of the people that appreciate what you do. Letting this go would be a pitty and if we are not removing this part then it means we are gonna duplicate the vote.

You're actually proving my point :) If voting is about giving +1 it's useless. That's not the point of voting and makes voting a joke IMO. You want to bet how you'd have felt if one of use had given a -1 to your VOTE as a committer? :)

Also the voting process is usually initiated by an existing commiter. IMO the initiator is responsible to assure he is proposing someone who will be accepted without problems.

That's funny because it's the opposite of voting. What's the point of voting if you know the result already? The point of voting is to get the feedback from people. You're right though that right now it's a pain. When I propose someone I effectively have to contact a lot of committers manually by pinging them directly on skype or by mail to ask them how they'd felt if I started a vote mail for such person. The only reason I do this is because I know that a negative vote will be very negative for that person and I don't want that to happen. If the VOTE mail was on a private list, I would definitely not do this. Whenever I'd think that someone is good, I'd propose the VOTE and people who've interacted with the person would tell me what they really think.

Until now people that didn't agreed with something (or didn't had enough information about the topic) they didn't vote.

That's even worse! We want to know what people who don't agree think. They usually have very valid points.

Because our number is increasing I propose to increase the needed votes to pass the proposal from 3 to 5+, or why not even half+1 in important cases, like this one.

Ok that's another proposal but it's not related to this IMO. VOTing is not about giving +1. It's about +1, 0 and -1.

IMO, we either do everything public or not. So doing a private list just for this purpose is not sufficient IMO and is also a not very encountered case.

I disagree. BTW this not new, we already have 2 private lists so the everything public or not argument doesn't stand ;) What you're effectively proposing is to stop voting for new members (since giving +1 for sure or not voting is the exact same). You're negating the fact that our vote system is not a proportional system (it's not a majority-based system). We have vetoes. We could indeed decide to change our vote rules for new members but it's bad since in your system people who don't agree will just shut up and you'll never know that the person shouldn't have become a contributor for such and such reason. I personally wouldn't change to change our vote rules for this. Thanks -Vincent

Thanks, Caty

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 16:16, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Oct 10, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Vincent Massol wrote:

...

Hi devs,

There are a few topics that are not supposed to be public or that would be better be not public.

One such topic is when we want to VOTE someone as a committer. It's very uncomfortable to do this in the open for the following reasons: * committers are tempted to VOTE +1 since voting negatively is seen publicly, including by the person being voted on * it's very undelicate to have this in the open especially if the person is voted down since that'll affect that person's morale and future participation in the project

So I'd like to propose creating a [email protected] list with the following characteristics: * private, visible only to committers

So here are some use cases for this list:

* voting in members * excluding members

Any other topic you see?

+1 from me.

...

I also propose it to use it for voting committers.

+1

Thanks -Vincent

...

WDYT?

Thanks -Vincent

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi Alex, On Oct 10, 2011, at 8:55 PM, Alex Busenius wrote:

Hi,

I'm -1 for the idea of moving votes about some selected topics to a secret mailing list.

The proposal/vote is only about voting about committers on a private list. ATM I don't see any other vote topics that would justify being done privately.

The most important point of public votes is to provide transparency to the community, which not only consists of informing the community of secretly made decisions, but also explaining why those decisions were made and leaving a possibility for everyone to discuss and interact with the committers. Remember, that by our rules, anyone is allowed to vote, it's just that only the committers have a binding vote.

Sure, we're not changing this.

I agree that choosing and excluding new committers are sensitive topics, so it makes sense to discuss such things in private first

What's the point of a "fake" vote if f it's been discussed before? If we discuss it privately and one of us is against it, we're not going to propose it so if we propose a vote publicly it means we all agree so what's the point of sending a vote? I don't see any interest in saying something like: "this person has been voted in as a committer, please provide your feedback within 48 hours if you think it's a bad idea!" Or: "committers have agreed not to vote this person as a committer, please provide arguments if you think committers should revise their judgements!" Thanks -Vincent

, but the actual vote should be public, with committers standing behind their votes and with enough time for others (i.e. for not-committers) to speak up and influence the vote.

So I'm +0 for a private mailing list for sensitive topics (+0 because I don't see how contacting 15 people that are all in the same skype chat once a year is hard), but we should not vote there.

Thanks, Alex

On 10.10.2011 15:05, Vincent Massol wrote:

...

Hi devs,

There are a few topics that are not supposed to be public or that would be better be not public.

One such topic is when we want to VOTE someone as a committer. It's very uncomfortable to do this in the open for the following reasons: * committers are tempted to VOTE +1 since voting negatively is seen publicly, including by the person being voted on * it's very undelicate to have this in the open especially if the person is voted down since that'll affect that person's morale and future participation in the project

So I'd like to propose creating a [email protected] list with the following characteristics: * private, visible only to committers

I also propose it to use it for voting committers.

WDYT?

Thanks -Vincent

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

On Oct 10, 2011, at 11:08 PM, Alex Busenius wrote:

Hi Vincent,

On 10.10.2011 21:47, Vincent Massol wrote:

...

Hi Alex,

On Oct 10, 2011, at 8:55 PM, Alex Busenius wrote:

...

Hi,

I'm -1 for the idea of moving votes about some selected topics to a secret mailing list.

The proposal/vote is only about voting about committers on a private list. ATM I don't see any other vote topics that would justify being done privately. Well, thats is enough IMO :)

...

...

The most important point of public votes is to provide transparency to the community, which not only consists of informing the community of secretly made decisions, but also explaining why those decisions were made and leaving a possibility for everyone to discuss and interact with the committers. Remember, that by our rules, anyone is allowed to vote, it's just that only the committers have a binding vote.

Sure, we're not changing this.

Well, then the topic of this vote is wrong.

...

...

I agree that choosing and excluding new committers are sensitive topics, so it makes sense to discuss such things in private first

What's the point of a "fake" vote if f it's been discussed before? If we discuss it privately and one of us is against it, we're not going to propose it so if we propose a vote publicly it means we all agree so what's the point of sending a vote?

The question whether a vote is "fake" IMO depends on what counts in the end. If we decide and then pretend as if we would vote, then yes, it is fake, we should better just write an announcement.

There is a difference whether we privately decide about something vs. we discuss something among us to have a feeling whether it is worth trying to vote and then publicly vote. Those 2 cases might look the same from the viewpoint of a committer, but they are definitely not the same for the others, and that is what counts. The difference is that in a public vote: 1. The final decision is not fallen yet 2. Some committers can change their mind after discussions with the community 3. It actually *involves* the community, although they have no binding veto etc. Besides, regarding the fact that 90% of committers are XWiki SAS employees, we should try not to make a wrong impression that the company leaders influence the decisions behind the scenes.

Actually the latest stats on this is 64% of *active* XWiki Core committers are from XWiki SAS. See http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/Committers If Andreas is voted in, that'll make it 61% :) I like this trend, it's great. Thanks -Vincent

...

I don't see any interest in saying something like: "this person has been voted in as a committer, please provide your feedback within 48 hours if you think it's a bad idea!" Or: "committers have agreed not to vote this person as a committer, please provide arguments if you think committers should revise their judgements!"

I don't think we should post anything about candidates that didn't event make it to a vote (please note the difference to "we have agreed not to vote someone as committer"), it destroys the point of discussing it privately beforehand to not hurt someone's feelings.

Thanks, Alex

...

Thanks -Vincent

...

, but the actual vote should be public, with committers standing behind their votes and with enough time for others (i.e. for not-committers) to speak up and influence the vote.

So I'm +0 for a private mailing list for sensitive topics (+0 because I don't see how contacting 15 people that are all in the same skype chat once a year is hard), but we should not vote there.

Thanks, Alex

On 10.10.2011 15:05, Vincent Massol wrote:

...

Hi devs,

There are a few topics that are not supposed to be public or that would be better be not public.

One such topic is when we want to VOTE someone as a committer. It's very uncomfortable to do this in the open for the following reasons: * committers are tempted to VOTE +1 since voting negatively is seen publicly, including by the person being voted on * it's very undelicate to have this in the open especially if the person is voted down since that'll affect that person's morale and future participation in the project

So I'd like to propose creating a [email protected] list with the following characteristics: * private, visible only to committers

I also propose it to use it for voting committers.

WDYT?

Thanks -Vincent

Hi, after thinking about it (and an IRL discussion with Vincent) here's my updated point of view on this: - Have a private mailing list for committers - If a committer feels that it's time for a contributor to become a committer, he suggests her on the private mailing list - Discussion on the private list ensues, committers decide whether the contributor is ready or not - If the contributor is not deemed ready, the process stops - If the contributor is deemed ready, the proposer talks to her privately and asks her whether she would be interested in becoming a committer - If she's not interested, the process stops - If she's interested, a public vote is launched on the devs mailing list This way the vote is still public and non-committers can voice their feedback, but there is a central location for the initial discussion (instead of the proposer having to go and talk to every committer privately on Skype, IRC and the like). We also keep the benefits of people standing publicly by their votes. WDYT? Guillaume On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:18 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]>wrote:

Hi,

I know Vincent retracted this vote for now, but just for the record and for the balance, I would definitely have +1'd. I support especially the point that it's tough to express reserves on someone's work publicly, even in an open world. And that in the end we might tend to just not do it when we should.

Jerome

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Hi devs,

There are a few topics that are not supposed to be public or that would be better be not public.

One such topic is when we want to VOTE someone as a committer. It's very uncomfortable to do this in the open for the following reasons: * committers are tempted to VOTE +1 since voting negatively is seen publicly, including by the person being voted on * it's very undelicate to have this in the open especially if the person is voted down since that'll affect that person's morale and future participation in the project

So I'd like to propose creating a [email protected] list with the following characteristics: * private, visible only to committers

I also propose it to use it for voting committers.

WDYT?

Thanks -Vincent

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Jérôme Velociter Winesquare http://www.winesquare.net/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

+1 too, Thanks, Marius On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:33, Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected]>wrote:

...

Hi,

after thinking about it (and an IRL discussion with Vincent) here's my updated point of view on this:

  - Have a private mailing list for committers      - If a committer feels that it's time for a contributor to become a      committer, he suggests her on the private mailing list      - Discussion on the private list ensues, committers decide whether the      contributor is ready or not   - If the contributor is not deemed ready, the process stops   - If the contributor is deemed ready, the proposer talks to her privately   and asks her whether she would be interested in becoming a committer      - If she's not interested, the process stops      - If she's interested, a public vote is launched on the devs mailing      list

This way the vote is still public and non-committers can voice their feedback, but there is a central location for the initial discussion (instead of the proposer having to go and talk to every committer privately on Skype, IRC and the like). We also keep the benefits of people standing publicly by their votes.

WDYT?

I have refrain myself from adding to the discussion until now since I was strongly -1 initially, but presented this way, I am now +1. I would add that, anything that a commiter do not feel ready for public discussion could be discussed on this private ML, but that nothing could be decide there without a public vote. This is already what we could do by skype or other direct discussion, and it therefore does not change anything to the current transparency of the project governance.

Denis

...

Guillaume

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:18 AM, Jerome Velociter <[email protected]

...

wrote:

...

Hi,

I know Vincent retracted this vote for now, but just for the record and for the balance, I would definitely have +1'd. I support especially the point that it's tough to express reserves on someone's work publicly, even in an open world. And that in the end we might tend to just not do it when we should.

Jerome

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Hi devs,

There are a few topics that are not supposed to be public or that would be better be not public.

One such topic is when we want to VOTE someone as a committer. It's very uncomfortable to do this in the open for the following reasons: * committers are tempted to VOTE +1 since voting negatively is seen publicly, including by the person being voted on * it's very undelicate to have this in the open especially if the person is voted down since that'll affect that person's morale and future participation in the project

So I'd like to propose creating a [email protected] list with the following characteristics: * private, visible only to committers

I also propose it to use it for voting committers.

WDYT?

Thanks -Vincent

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Jérôme Velociter Winesquare http://www.winesquare.net/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Let's say I'm ok with the list - but not very happy about the secrecy trend. Thanks, Caty On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 13:34, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]>wrote:

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:

...

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:33, Guillaume Lerouge <[email protected] wrote:

...

Hi,

after thinking about it (and an IRL discussion with Vincent) here's my updated point of view on this:

- Have a private mailing list for committers - If a committer feels that it's time for a contributor to become a committer, he suggests her on the private mailing list - Discussion on the private list ensues, committers decide whether the contributor is ready or not - If the contributor is not deemed ready, the process stops - If the contributor is deemed ready, the proposer talks to her privately and asks her whether she would be interested in becoming a committer - If she's not interested, the process stops - If she's interested, a public vote is launched on the devs mailing list

This way the vote is still public and non-committers can voice their feedback, but there is a central location for the initial discussion (instead of the proposer having to go and talk to every committer privately on Skype, IRC and the like). We also keep the benefits of people standing publicly by their votes.

WDYT?

I have refrain myself from adding to the discussion until now since I was strongly -1 initially, but presented this way, I am now +1. I would add that, anything that a commiter do not feel ready for public discussion could be discussed on this private ML, but that nothing could be decide there without a public vote. This is already what we could do by skype or other direct discussion, and it therefore does not change anything to the current transparency of the project governance.

IMO it's good to have this mailing list for a simple reason: if any committer need to say something to other committers and is not yet comfortable making it public it should definitely be sent to this mailing list instead of nothing. We can always decide to move the discussion to the public mailing list after. Be it about new committer or anything else.

...

Denis

...

Guillaume

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:18 AM, Jerome Velociter <

[email protected]

...

...

...

wrote:

...

Hi,

I know Vincent retracted this vote for now, but just for the record and for the balance, I would definitely have +1'd. I support especially the point that it's tough to express reserves on someone's work publicly, even in an open world. And that in the end we might tend to just not do it when we should.

Jerome

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Hi devs,

There are a few topics that are not supposed to be public or that would be better be not public.

One such topic is when we want to VOTE someone as a committer. It's very uncomfortable to do this in the open for the following reasons: * committers are tempted to VOTE +1 since voting negatively is seen publicly, including by the person being voted on * it's very undelicate to have this in the open especially if the person is voted down since that'll affect that person's morale and future participation in the project

So I'd like to propose creating a [email protected] list with the following characteristics: * private, visible only to committers

I also propose it to use it for voting committers.

WDYT?

Thanks -Vincent

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Jérôme Velociter Winesquare http://www.winesquare.net/ _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs