Re: [VOTE] Release Manager Selection

On 6/1/26 09:07, Tim Düsterhus wrote:

Hi Am 2026-06-01 15:49, schrieb Ben Ramsey:

At least 4 messages raised concerns about the naming of the roles: 1. "I'm not sure I like the notion or language of 'hands-off' vs. 'hands-on' release managers." [1] 2. "I disagree with designating whether anyone is 'hands-on' or 'hands-off.'" [1] 3. "I still dislike the distinction of 'hands-on' and 'hands-off' as descriptors for these roles and disagree with their use in defining these roles." [2] 4. "If we can come up with better terminology around the roles [...] then I'll probably change my vote to a 'yes.'" [2] 5. "I've been thinking more about the terminology and have come up with a concrete suggestion." [3] 6. "I agree with Ben, I would prefer 'Veteran Release Manager' / 'Co- release Manager' over 'hands on' / 'hands off'. The 'hands off' sounds negative to me." [4]

(1), (2), and (3) were concerns with regard to the policy itself, not the terminology used. For (4) you elided the relevant part during, namely “and make the roles less about their level of involvement”, which is also a concern regarding the policy itself. And similarly the email that contained quote (5) also mentions “I don't want to define the roles around involvement”, which is a concern regarding the policy itself and (6) is in direct agreement of that without adding anything by itself. Best regards Tim Düsterhus

Since I wrote three of those messages, I should like to think I know what my own concerns were. The meaning of my statements can be both about the terminology _and_ the policy. These concerns aren't mutually exclusive. I chose my words carefully. I referred to the "language" and used the words "designating," "descriptors," and "terminology," all of which are specific to the naming. As for "eliding the relevant part," for the quotation, I was only focusing on the part that discussed the naming, but it looks like you did not consider that relevant. Cheers, Ben