cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>
Subject Re: Discuss changing the project bylaws for the PMC Chair voting process
Date Fri, 01 Mar 2013 15:44:40 GMT
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 05:15:16PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Chip Childers
> <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:36:36PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Chip Childers
> >> > I'd also point out, as one of our mentors did in the private list
> >> > discussion, that the chair role is largely an administrative one.
> >> >
> >> > And while we're at it, the private discussion brought up the idea of
> >> > re-introducing a rotation (or at least a "term"), which would allow
> >> > for a regular opportunity to recommend a change to the board.  I'm not
> >> > sure that it's required, given the nature of the job...  but does anyone
> >> > have an opinion?
> >> >
> >> > -chip
> >>
> >> I'm personally 'meh' on this.
> >> As you noted the role is largely an administrative role than fearful
> >> power and authority; and I am inclined to have a person, particularly
> >> if they are bearing the job well, to continue with it until such time
> >> as they no longer wish to bear it.
> >>
> >> I do understand the point that 'regular' rotation can provide the
> >> perception of the project not being 'controlled' by a single entity.
> >> From inside the project, I don't see that, but perhaps outside the
> >> project that is an important consideration.
> >>
> >> --David
> >>
> >
> > David - your opinion was shifted during discussions on the private list.
> > Care to share an update?
> >
> > For the record - I'm for adding a term, where the option of switching
> > the chair (which is largely an administrative role anyway) is regularly
> > discussed.  I'd propose annually.
> >
> > -chip
> 
> Yes - meant to get to this earlier.
> 
> My opinion has been swayed by Alex Karasulu
> 
> While I was originally against this, I see little negative, and it has
> the following benefits:
> 
> * ensures someone else learns the job
> * ensures that we are clear it isn't a position of power for one
> person or one company to hold onto forever.
> 
> I'd be happy with a term for the chair and one year seems to be fine
> for term length.
> 
> --David
> 

OK - I'm going to draft this up and start a vote now.

Mime
View raw message