Re: [Debconf-team] Meeting notes, Tuesday 8 February 2011
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 11:29:36PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> First, on anonymizing the requesters: I am _against_ it. It might seem
> I want sponsorship to favor the group of people we meet regularly -
> But no, I want to favor people we know and acknowledge have worked
> most and are most valuable to the project, or to the conference
> specifically. That cannot be done if we anonymize anything. We cannot
> vote on people just by seeing "Person A requests EUR1000, total ticket
> costs EUR1200, and he says he's doing a great job". We have to get
> some more insight - And being us a relatively small group, that will
> defeat the anonymous status. Please tell me, if you were to find a
> person flying in from Mexico saying he plans on "catching up with
> pending keyring requests", how anonymous would that be?
I fully agree. When voting last year I prefered DDs/DMs over others and
prefered active DebConf supporter over others - so DDs/DMs who were
active in helping with DebConf had the best chance. To decide about an
annonymous decision I would need more information what the person just
has done for Debian / DebConf. This has two consequences:
1. It decreases chances of people who are quite short in mentioning
what they have done (in several cases you know what named people
have done immediately). We all know that people are frequently
either shy or lazy in expressing themself in those webforms ...
2. It makes the principle of annonymousity useless if people write
a lot what they have done - you will recognise the person behind
it in several cases.
So IMHO this is at best a useless attempt if not contraproductive.
> Second, on anonimyzing the committee (the herb@ members): Not showing
> who casted each opinion in Penta is near to trivial (heck, even a
> small CSS trick would do), although it does not gain us much. If
> people feel seeing other committee members' opinion (either in general
> or in particular for a given member) distorts the opinion casted by
> following members, we can hide it - Still, given this project is based
> on trust and on clustering people working closely together, I prefer
> (as previous years' herb@ member) knowing who said what - I give more
> weight to the opinion, positive or negative, of people who have worked
> together with somebody than just my gut feeling. And part of the
> reason for having a largish team in herb@ is to shield from the
> unavoidable mistakes that stem from just being unable to know
> everybody. I find it important to read who had what opinion when
> rating. Yes, that influences my own opinion - But I don't feel it to
> be negative.
I fully agree as well. Anonymyzing is IMHO in contrast to our openness
and the non-anonymous writer tends to choose his wording more picky
which is an additional plus to what Gunnar said (and I fully subscribe
all other words of "my brother in mind" ;-)).
> Maybe in any case I'd prefer if we hid the identities by default, but
> still left a button in the Penta interface to reveal them.
While this might be an interesting thing I guess I would push the button
in each case. So that's perhaps additional coding work for not much
use.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: