[python-committers] Votes on new core dev candidates

[M.-A. Lemburg]

On 25.03.2019 23:58, Steve Dower wrote:
> On 25Mar2019 1503, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>> On 25.03.2019 16:20, Steve Dower wrote:
>>> To be clear, my pushback (on Discourse, since I can only send email from
>>> an actual laptop these days but can participate over there from my
>>> phone) has been against vague nominations, not the individuals
>>> themselves.
>>>
>>> I'm *very* concerned about the perception of commit rights being
>>> "awarded" rather than being a added responsibility specific to CPython.
>>
>> I'm not sure where you got that perception from. The two candidates
>> both want to actively contribute to Python.
>>
>> It's possible that the nominations did not emphasize this enough, but
>> that's an issue with the nomination text, not with the person being
>> nominated.
> 
> That's literally what I said.

Great, so we're on the same page.

>> Yet, the public perception of the discussion is that the persons are
>> not qualified enough and that's definitely not going to have a
>> productive effect on getting more people helping.
> 
> I don't know where you got *this* from. I haven't seen any criticism of
> the candidates themselves - just questions that ought to have been
> answered very easily in the nomination (and were answered almost
> immediately upon request).

I'm reading both this list and discourse (in mailing list mode).
Perhaps those comments were mostly on the ML.

>>> Isn't this what's been happening? It certainly has been on Discourse.
>>
>> Not really. I'm not talking about some moderator having to step
>> in to take action. I'm talking about the nominators actively
>> supporting the discussion by fixing mistakes in the nomination,
>> proxying and adding more information (since the candidates cannot
>> speak for themselves) and helping to clarify misconceptions.
> 
> Um, that's exactly what happened? I don't understand why you're saying
> it didn't (unless someone's edited the history over there between me
> reading it and you reading it).

The post for Stéphane on discourse still reads the same as the original
posting on discourse and this ML. The last edit was on March 22.

>> Asking people who have voted -1 or +1 to publicly tell the world why
>> they did so is not helpful in this respect, since it just creates bias.
>> What people, who are unsure how to vote, really need, is more
>> information, not bias.
> 
> This is illogical. Knowing how and why certain people voted is useful
> information when you know that person (and it's also why we generally
> use options like -1, -0, +0, +1, and sometimes +/-100 ;) ). Without this
> added information, the *only* thing we have is bias, and I don't think
> we have a big enough group to average out individual bias in such
> important decisions as this.

I guess we have a different understanding of bias, then :-)

I prefer to base my votes and opinions on available information
much more than other people's votes and opinions. Using their
votes to cover up for lack of information does not make me
feel comfortable, so I try to get more information or abstain.

In the current case, I do know both candidates well enough
to give them my vote.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Mar 26 2019)
>>> Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ...  http://www.egenix.com/
>>> Python Database Interfaces ...           http://products.egenix.com/
>>> Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ...           http://zope.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________

::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs :::

   eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
    D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
           Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
               http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
                      http://www.malemburg.com/