Hi AJ, > When choosing personnel, asking for public objections is probably a > pretty bad approach. It's hurtful to the person being objected to, both > when the objections are accurate and when they aren't, and, especially > if the objections end up being ignored, it's harmful to the working > environment when the person who objected has to work with the person > they objected to in future. > > Personally, I'd suggest focussing more on "are they demonstrably doing > useful work? yes, then they keep or increase their perms; no, then > decrease their perms". (Probably couldn't have done anything different > this time around, but maybe something to keep in mind for the future) > Along those lines, it might be worth having a review in six months or > so to see which of the editors and processes have been effective, and > which ones haven't, and see if there's anything worth changing further > to increase the wins and diminish the losses. Could be worth making > something like that a regular thing (once a year?); for the Debian > Technical Committee, we had somewhat similar problems with inactivity > and a lack of renewal, which (IMO) was fixed in a big part just by > having a policy of saying "okay, longest serving member gets booted, > remaining folks should invite someone new" once a year. I'm respectfully dissenting here. Decade(s)-old IETF / BIP standards are kinda open-source commons after-all, and this is very expected than someone who is aspiring to get perms in their maintenance have to answer objections from the non-permissioned people enjoying usage of the commons. Yes, it can hurt to have to answers public objections on your person when you're aspiring to open-source perms. I think that's part of the process, if you wish a comfortable job you can always go to work at $YOUR_LOCAL_BIG_TECH (tm). Additionally, one can wish to be sure that the candidate have sufficient level of ethics / personal integrity. Especially, to serve as a check-and-balance when one has to conduct privileged actions in the execution of permissions. W.r.t, I can only invite anyone to read the ACM Code of Ethics: https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics (Far from perfect as ethics is a dynamic concept after-all, though can provide guidelines if you're entitled with perms in this space, and you don't know how to act in a given instance). Apart of that, I think the idea of the longest serving members in a set of maintainers / editors without substantial activity getting booted every X and remaining folks can invite someone new can serve as a not so bad rule of thumb. To conclude, I'm rejoicing too on seeing concrete results in the nomination of BIP editors, which doesn't forbid ulterior discussions on improving its process. Best, Antoine Le mercredi 24 avril 2024 à 16:36:38 UTC+1, Anthony Towns a écrit : > On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 07:14:34PM +0000, 'Ava Chow' via Bitcoin > Development Mailing List wrote: > > Since we're now past the deadline of April 19th, I'd like to inform > > everyone of what will happen on Monday. > > > > There has not been any actual objections to the nominees nor have there > > been any suggestions on choosing a subset of them since my last email. > > As such, there is rough consensus on adding Kanzure, Murch, Jonatack, > > Ruben, and Roasbeef as BIP editors, and they will be added on Monday > > April 22nd. > > Thanks for pushing this forward, Ava! > > One thing though: > > > There has not been any actual objections to the nominees nor have there > > When choosing personnel, asking for public objections is probably a > pretty bad approach. It's hurtful to the person being objected to, both > when the objections are accurate and when they aren't, and, especially > if the objections end up being ignored, it's harmful to the working > environment when the person who objected has to work with the person > they objected to in future. > > Personally, I'd suggest focussing more on "are they demonstrably doing > useful work? yes, then they keep or increase their perms; no, then > decrease their perms". (Probably couldn't have done anything different > this time around, but maybe something to keep in mind for the future) > > Along those lines, it might be worth having a review in six months or > so to see which of the editors and processes have been effective, and > which ones haven't, and see if there's anything worth changing further > to increase the wins and diminish the losses. Could be worth making > something like that a regular thing (once a year?); for the Debian > Technical Committee, we had somewhat similar problems with inactivity > and a lack of renewal, which (IMO) was fixed in a big part just by > having a policy of saying "okay, longest serving member gets booted, > remaining folks should invite someone new" once a year. > > Anyway, it's easy to quibble about what the best process might be, > but actual results are more important, so thanks again Ava! > > Cheers, > aj > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/a32f9994-059d-44dd-83c7-c3bb732888adn%40googlegroups.com.