Mailing-List: contact dev-help@corinthia.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2015 18:55:54 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAK2iWdTxSYUxVSeh2He1v1=9nyvTe90c5YWUc8xL3=5RxLXdwA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Vote ideas for new chair.
From: jan i <jani@apache.org>
To: "dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org" <dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158b7e4285aee050bc32b52

--089e0158b7e4285aee050bc32b52
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi.

While the nominations are running, I would like to give some thought to how
the vote should be.

I assume people being nominated have been contacted by those nominating, so
we can assume they are up for election. If not it is important to know if
the nominees volunteer.

For the vote, I would suggest a couple of things:
- ask the candidates to present, how they expect (no guarantees) to use
their AOO time and especially how they see a way out of our current
situation.
- If the "winning" candidate is less than 3 (binding) votes from the
second, we should run a second vote only between number 1 and 2 (maybe also
3, depending on the scores). The reason being that other candidates makes
the comparison unfair.

 In my opinion a chair, who wants to be active, can only do so if he/she
has a high backing of the PMC group and the community at large.

I am aware that the vote rules are set solely by the PMC, and the ASF
Bylaws; so please read this as a recommendation.

rgds
jan i

--089e0158b7e4285aee050bc32b52--