incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List
Date Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:05:30 GMT
I don't object to this process. But lets be clear, PMC membership is
*not* a popularity contest, it's a recognition of merit. So the number
of nominations is irrelevant, more nominations just means that the
individual has been seen by more people. Sometimes merit stuff is not
visible to many, e.g. I know how much effort some members of this PPMC
have put into the AOO track at ACEU, most of that work is invisible
here so only one or two people will recognise that merit.

This is not an objection to the process being followed, just an
objection to the idea that the number of "nominations" is important.


On 19 September 2012 21:06, RGB ES <> wrote:
> 2012/9/19 Dennis E. Hamilton <>
>> +1
>> There is absolutely nothing wrong with a list process for individuals
>> nominating 10 persons for the PPMC.  Furthermore, let's have just one
>> procedure in place at a time.  When this one is concluded, there will be
>> occasion to reflect and determine the next steps.
>> The tabulation will be very interesting, since we'll know the frequency
>> with which various individuals are nominated by others.  That's an useful
>> straw poll.  What is made of it is something that will happen in full view
>> and without haste.
>> Furthermore, there is no need to discuss or justify the nominations being
>> made.  (There is not much value in nominating individuals who have declined
>> to be on the PMC, but there's no harm either.)
>> I recommend that the process continue.  My only objection is that having
>> secret nominations is not compatible with the Apache Way and the oversight
>> responsibilities of the ASF.  There are private ballots, but not secret
>> ones as far as I know.
>> I recommend that no one accept nominations privately and that those who
>> have already sent theirs via any back-channel use ooo-private if they do
>> not want their selection of names made public.
> +1 (Even if I see no point on hiding the vote).
> Regards
> Ricardo
>> (Since there are no -1 votes, and everybody is constrained to 10, I have
>> trouble seeing the problem.)  There is no reason to identify those who have
>> nominated anyone on the consolidated report.
>>  - Dennis
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kay Schenk []
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:26
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][PMC] Proposed PMC List
>> On 09/19/2012 10:38 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>> > In this way, a wiki can provide more than a mail list post.
>> >
>> > Louis
>> >
>> Yes, a wiki can provide more than a mail post, but I think this exercise
>> is valid, and provides a convenient way for *anyone* on this list to
>> express an "opinion" without explicitly stating why. I actually think
>> this is a point in the mailing lists favor. This approach is simple and
>> based on impressions of individuals involved with this project. I don't
>> see much wrong with that. Picking "10" has been difficult for all of us,
>> but I did understand that "10" was not a magic number for the final PMC.
>> I agree with Juergen that we should complete this circle. I've found it
>> pretty interesting so far.
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>> "We never sit anything out. We are cups, constantly and quietly
>>   being filled.  The trick is, knowing how to tip ourselves over and
>>   let the beautiful stuff out."
>>                           -- Ray Bradbury, "Zen in the Art of Writing"

Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)

View raw message