[python-committers] Votes on new core dev candidates

[Steve Dower]

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.

> 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).

>> 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).

> 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.

Cheers,
Steve