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 10:20:13 GMT
On 2 May 2018 at 11:08, Jan Iversen <> wrote:
>> On 2 May 2018, at 11:49, sebb <> wrote:
>> 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)
> There are no rules saying that such a discussion has to be private@, and in all the projects
where I have been involved (some of them as chair) the discussions and votes were public.
I am aware that only votes from PMC members count, but hearing opinions from everybody cannot
do any harm.

In my recollection, all the PMCs I have been on have discussed chair
appointments in private, like they do PMC appointments.

> I you recall, when I offered to be chair, I was not even committer, but that was seen
as a formality and I share that view.
> Look at the board reports, we present:
> ## PMC changes:
> - Jan Iversen was added to the PMC on Wed Mar 15 2017
> ## Committer base changes:
> - Last committer addition was Jan Iversen at Thu Mar 16 <x-apple-data-detectors://1>
> That just goes to show, being practical sometimes are the better way.
>>> 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.
>> Agreed.
>>> 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.
> You may of course think as you wish, but being the one who is retiring, I believe it
was my decision where to post the information. If you want to make statements/discussions
in private@ it is not a problem.
> I am sure you have a reason for keeping this on private@, maybe you should explain that
on private@. As for me, I have nothing to hide, and prefer to involve the whole community
and have a public record.

Oh dear. This has gone horribly wrong.

I am only saying that I think chair discussions should be held on
private, as we do PMC and committer invitations.
That has been my experience on other PMCs as far as I remember.
And I thought it was a requirement, because it involves personnel.

If I am wrong about that requirement, then fine.
Let it occur in the open.

All I said was, "Surely this should be private..."
Not: this must be on private@

> rgds
> Jan I
>>> 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
>>>>> 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