Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of gstein@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAK2iWdTeJ-3ODJKAf12Fu5cxgcccvr=6OghLv=b-K=u+=-YSEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54945C1D.5050906@rcbowen.com>
	<CA+ULb+sUBNZFkJ+R3K+RJr0CW1vkH75Yx7S2A3O6hvjUEkQWbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DM2PR03MB49529C1C96A875307E5AC2C996B0@DM2PR03MB495.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<CA+ULb+sNB+mv_0gJBvWPd_0QxYT8WBm-DRQqJfsKQ0ff=AXEZg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADmm+KepUfpQQP4N9TGAhx0YUZznQ+LbPXNFqdTYdA7bRuZUzw@mail.gmail.com>
	<D0BED66D.22500%aharui@adobe.com>
	<CAOGo0VY=8oPsF7qrNVsego9Ga=dEwLCrqUHNyvRv8anxKjtthg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54A1692C.1080704@rcbowen.com>
	<BF1D94E6-9101-483B-8FB2-E88ADC8ADA34@gmail.com>
	<54A1B0B2.6060100@rcbowen.com>
	<154C3656-5832-41A2-8125-AAAA82DF4DB4@gmail.com>
	<CAEWfVJkF+gYiRCMS=g03zE4n8AZsiX=PMnc4eZo2MzTC8uxZfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK2iWdTeJ-3ODJKAf12Fu5cxgcccvr=6OghLv=b-K=u+=-YSEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 04:12:40 -0600
Message-ID: 
 <CABD8fLUXnm8unSE+QWAdCpFJxR++wngxuYQeE6UxKeH9W4N06Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c23d282b1006050b6c3b47

--001a11c23d282b1006050b6c3b47
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:04 AM, jan i <jani@apache.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> >
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Andrew Purtell
> > <andrew.purtell@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > ...Certainly some projects have a de facto lead that coincide with
> Chair
> > and I'm pretty sure
> > > in some cases that is an honorary arrangement agreed to by the
> > community....
> >
> > *loud red alarms going off all over my brain*
> >
> > If that's the case, such projects should make sure they implement a
> > regular PMC chair rotation. Or be prepared to go down in flames once
> > that leader changes their mind and no one has a clue how their project
> > runs.
>
> big +1....actually the chair rotation is something we should consider
> having as a rule (and allow deviations for good reasins).
>

I cannot see the Board ever mandating chair rotations. That is up to the
community. As long as the chair/VP remains administrative, then there isn't
a problem. We have *many* chairs across the Foundation (myself included)
that have been in their position for many years. It works well because we
*support* the project, rather than any attempt to direct, steer, or lead
based upon that position. The VP is the link between a project's needs and
the Foundation's support for that project, along with bidirectional
communication.

For projects that don't understand the difference between "supportive" and
"lead": yeah, they could use a dose of trout-slapping and a chair rotation
or three.

Cheers,
-g

--001a11c23d282b1006050b6c3b47--