incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Proposed PMC Chair nomination process
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:48:06 GMT
Funny.

I imagine that if the Board were to take any surprising action, it would be by declining the
request for approval of the TLP, along with recommendations for any cure.

In any case, the board can veto anything, whether done in the open or not, whether the list
of PMC is agreed or not.  I suggest the idea is always for us to govern ourselves as a community,
to respect the ASF policies and principles, and to respond to actions and instructions from
the board however they come about.

Having a public understanding of the proposed PMC membership followed then the designation
of a Chair seems completely appropriate, despite the possibility of lightning bolts from on
high.  

If there is to be determination of the recommended Chair by lazy consensus (and voting if
necessary), should not the recommendation for the PMC also be brought forward for concurrence
on ooo-dev?

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org] 
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:30
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed PMC Chair nomination process

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> I suggest that the initial Project Management Committee (PMC) needs to be identified
before the election of a Chair from that body is undertaken.
>

There is a bootstrapping issue with that suggestion.  The PMC does not
exist until the ASF Board creates it.  And the Board has veto power
over that list.  So all we have at this time, formally at least, is
the PPMC.

> Also, this seems like a very good time to review, for the benefit of all here, what the
duties of PMC members are and, with respect to that, what the specific responsibilities of
the Chair are and what the special standing of the Chair is so its accountability can be carried
out.
>

Indeed.  That is why my 2nd sentence was to point to a link that
describes exactly this.

-Rob

>  - Dennis
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:36
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Proposed PMC Chair nomination process
>
> Now that the community graduation ballot has passed, one of our next
> tasks is to identify a PMC Chair.
>
> You can read about the duties of a PMC Chair here:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair
>
> How do we want to do this?
>
> A strawman proposal:
>
> 1) Nominations would be open for 72 hours.  Anyone can nominate
> someone for the role.  Self-nominations are fine.  And of course
> nominations can be declined.
>
> 2) If there is only one nomination, then we are done, provided there
> are no sustained objections.
>
> 3) If there is more than one nomination we discuss on the list for
> another 72 hours.  Discussion would primarily be on ooo-dev, but some
> subjects might be directed to ooo-private.
>
> 4) If after 72-hours discussion there are still two or more nominees
> then we vote.  Everyone would be welcome to vote, but binding votes
> would be from PPMC members.  If there are more than 2 candidates we
> would probably need to use a more complicated voting system, or have a
> run-off vote if none of the nominees receive an outright majority.
>
> Any improvements or alternatives to this basic scheme?
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>


Mime
View raw message