attic-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <>
Subject Re: Discussion to select chair candidates followed by a vote starting may 13 2018.
Date Wed, 02 May 2018 09:49:57 GMT
On 2 May 2018 at 10:33, Jan Iversen <> wrote:
>> On 2 May 2018, at 11:09, sebb <> wrote:
>> Top-posting.
>> Surely any discussion which relates to personnel should take place on
>> the private@ list?
> Surely not, a discussion/vote for a new chair is something that involves the whole community
and not only the PMC.

AFAIK discussion on new chairs are held on private@
Whilst the decision may affect the community, AFAIK a chair must be a
member of the PMC (or an ASF member)

> It is correct questions relating to specific persons are kept in private, typical examples
are discussions about inviting a committer or more rarely a discussion about the behaviour
of a committer. Neither of these are the case here, if you read private@ I made my intentions
clear a while ago, and are now putting my intentions into effect.


> If you refer to my description of the reasons, I have kept strictly to public fact, and
not expressed my personal opinion. If you feel I overstepped the line somewhere in my mail
and revealed not already public information, please be specific.

I am not saying that you have.

> You cannot deny me the right to give reasons why I am leaving this project. Actually
your email just confirms my decision.

That is not what I am saying at all.
Sorry that you have got that impression.

However I think it would be wrong to discuss a new chair on a public list.
That's all I am saying.

> rgds
> Jan I.
>> On 1 May 2018 at 21:46, Jan Iversen <> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> I am truly sorry having to write this email. I am embarrassed of not being able
to keep my promise and stay as a long-term chair, but sometimes you have to ask yourself is
it worth the time spent and instead use time where it is makes a difference.
>>> Considering we have a very silent community and the current site maintenance
was unacceptable to me, I spent a couple of days to make my life easier and asked for opinions
from the community before changing the production site, after that our list drowned in emails
from 2 pmc members pursuing other solutions.
>>> This is not the first time we have a situation like this, a while ago we had
long discussion with -1 flowing around, between the same 2 PMC members about rewriting rules
etc, where finally (I believe partly due to my intervention) consensus was reached.
>>> I volunteered to be chair and was clear it meant I had not only to file board
reports but also do the bulk part of retiring projects. I did not volunteer to spend endless
hours trying to get consensus or to get simple changes agreed on.
>>> I proposed a very simple solution, but have accepted that the other 2 solutions
each have advantages, so I might have continued had I believed in the possibility of consensus
and an, for me, easy to maintain solution. There are no signs of convergence and a vote on
technical solutions are bad, apart from the fact that I am convinced both solutions would
receive a -1. Changes are high, that the current deadlock will end with no change at all.
>>> I humbly accept my failure to help bring consensus and progress to the attic,
so I hereby announce my retirement as chair/pmc/committer.
>>> I am hereby starting a discussion on who should be the next chair. The discussion
will run until 13 may 2018, where I will start the formal vote. The result of the vote will
be added to the agenda for the board June meeting. In case we have no positive result of the
vote, the board will be asked to appoint a new chair.
>>> The 2 PMC members have each promised to support a future site, so it is natural
for me to  propose Henkp and Sebb as chair candidates, both have used significant time to
implement technical elegant solutions.
>>> Ball is rolling, let the community decide.
>>> rgds
>>> Jan I
>>> Sent from my iPad

View raw message