incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed PMC Chair nomination process
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:25:00 GMT
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Rory O'Farrell <ofarrwrk@iol.ie> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:33:13 -0700
> Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>> 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 out.
>> >
>> > - 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
>> >
>>
>>
> This seems to be a "chicken and egg" situation.  Normally a committee will elect a Chair
from its membership.  If a Chair is imposed from outside, either by specific election or appointment
by a governing body, then is he a full member of the committee, with all rights and privileges
of membership?  Take a theoretical case - a chair is specifically elected or appointed; he
is extra to the committee.  Then, for reasons of health say, he decides he can not continue
to act as chair; does he lose his position on the committee or does he remain on the committee,
increasing its number by one over the statutory structure?  One could see this process repeating
to "pack" the committee with extra members over and above the statutory structure. Does the
procedure for appointing a chair start again, with a new chair elected or nominated?  It seems
to me, wih many years of commttee work behind me, that one first needs to elect the committee,
who then, from their number, nominate a candidate or ca
>  ndidates for chair.  These nominees are either filtered out by an election process (whether
of the committee or of the wider membership of the association, depending on the rules) until
a sole person remains.  If the governing body have reservations about the suitability of any
candidate, the time for these to be expressed is before the filtration process, and preferably
privately before the list of candidates is issued publicly.
>
> My remarks above are general, not based on any existing rules of any specific organisation.
 I'm trying to show what seems to me the necessary logic.
>

Good observations.  But I think in the end we need to put consensus
over process.  Not that we abuse process, by any means.  But if we
arrive at a result that can only be defended on procedural grounds,
but is not based on the consensus of the community, then our
graduation resolution will receive some strong, well-deserved scrutiny
from the IPMC and the ASF Board.

In other words, if these decisions are adversarial in nature, and
require fine policy arguments to resolve, then that would be a a
warning sign that we may not ready to graduate.  Instead I hope we'll
face difficulties of another kind:  the hard decision to pick from
among several qualified nominees.

-Rob

> --
> Rory O'Farrell <ofarrwrk@iol.ie>

Mime
View raw message