Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of dennis.hamilton@acm.org
 designates 216.119.133.2 as permitted sender)
Reply-To: <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
To: <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
References: 
 <CAP-ksojAe3vL_u0DoonDHo49xGH1aY+saWY0-aKfcX0rxdSTNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <017b01cd815c$393855a0$aba900e0$@acm.org>
 <8714CF33-D477-4C8F-99B8-2B815E7D762E@comcast.net>
 <CAP-ksohJ+uMyyxKsDxLawAD5hza1XPBRj_FJanEih7gVOc9Omg@mail.gmail.com>
 <31E7BC31-7112-4EFA-BA67-E1A7E5078281@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <31E7BC31-7112-4EFA-BA67-E1A7E5078281@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Proposed PMC Chair nomination process
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:56:20 -0700
Organization: NuovoDoc
Message-ID: <019d01cd8160$fc5ba380$f512ea80$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQJ+5AtVuFKk1Uh6pQ7qFkv5HAc4KAEDvBWoAhr/lW8A9d5iMQMSkh6wlcu+1JA=
Content-Language: en-us

I'm going over my daily quota on this thread.  One clarification and =
then no more for today:

I never suggested that the *proposed* PMC be the body that recommends =
the chair.  The only body here that deals with personnel matters and =
other matters requiring binding votes on the project is the PPMC. =20

There is no PPMC chair.  There is to be a PMC and a PMC Chair as part of =
creating the TLP.  Those are offered up by recommendation from the PPMC =
(with the concurrence of the Incubator PMC, one presumes).

I agree that this should be done as transparently as possible, even =
though ultimately the PPMC is responsible (with regard to the =
recommendation to the Board).

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net]=20
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:47
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed PMC Chair nomination process


On Aug 23, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> =
wrote:
>> I'm not comfortable having a PMC Chair election and nomination on =
ooo-dev.
>>=20
>=20
> It appears the IPMC was able to do this for their own Chair.

Well they were able to reach consensus, but this was after a very, very =
long set of discussions that backed into selecting a new Chair. The =
discussion was not initially about the Chair.

>=20
>> I also agree that we should form the PMC membership first.
>>=20
>=20
> See  my response to Dennis on  this.  There is no PMC here, only a =
PPMC.

Certainly and already replied. Maybe we should just call it the once and =
future PMC and stop having a silly semantic argument.

I've written what I want to say about this today and will now go back to =
work.

Regards,
Dave

>=20
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>=20
>> On Aug 23, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>=20
>>> I suggest that the initial Project Management Committee (PMC) needs =
to be identified before the election of a Chair from that body is =
undertaken.
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> - Dennis
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> -----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
>>>=20
>>> Now that the community graduation ballot has passed, one of our next
>>> tasks is to identify a PMC Chair.
>>>=20
>>> You can read about the duties of a PMC Chair here:
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair
>>>=20
>>> How do we want to do this?
>>>=20
>>> A strawman proposal:
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> 2) If there is only one nomination, then we are done, provided there
>>> are no sustained objections.
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> Any improvements or alternatives to this basic scheme?
>>>=20
>>> Regards,
>>>=20
>>> -Rob
>>>=20
>>=20