incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed PMC Chair nomination process
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:33:13 GMT
I'm not comfortable having a PMC Chair election and nomination on ooo-dev.

I also agree that we should form the PMC membership first.


On Aug 23, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton 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.
> 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
> - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:36
> To:
> 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:
> 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

View raw message