Re: [proposal:PMC] Member and Chair elections

[Nicola Ken Barozzi]

Berin Loritsch wrote:

I am bringing this back up, because it seems that we are in agreement
on the PMC voting procedures.  Now we need to look at the PMC
membership rules (governing future PMC membership processes).

This is only a starting point--and it is designed to get us moving
forward with PMC/Chair policies.  I have changed my original
proposal on Chair term from 3 months to 6 months at the request of
several developers.


PMC Membership
--------------

* PMC members are nominated by the community, and voted in by
  the existing PMC.

community = mailing list || committers || PMC members?

I assume you're implying (community = mailing list) +1

* The PMC nominees must be an active committer in Avalon, or a
  project that depends on Avalon.

+1 this is a rule that the PMC should apply, since it can be a bit subjective.

* PMC nominees that come from dependant projects must be voted
  to the position by their community.  The community must have
  at a minimum six (6) active committers.  The dependant project
  must have a code dependency on Avalon (i.e. at a minimum
  requiring Framework).

Why 6? (just curious about the number)

+1

* The PMC votes the nominee in.

+1

Chair Membership
----------------

* Any of the PMC members are eligible for the chair position.

+1

* The community decides which of the PMC members are nominated
  to the position.

+1

* The PMC makes the final vote on the Chair based on the
  nominated individuals.

+0

+1 for the committers making the final vote.

I would add that the PMC Chair should then be "ratified" by the [EMAIL PROTECTED], which can decide also to not accept the nomination.

This is because the Chair is the reference to the board, so it appointed by the board. I would assume that 99,999% of the time the board would ratify it.

* The chair position will be up for revote every 6 months.
NOTE: I don't want to impose any limitation on the number
of consecutive terms a chair can serve. If someone is
doing a good job and acting responsibly in the position,
then why mess with a good thing?

+1

  I.e. if Nicola proves
  himself to be nonpartial and really a benefit to the
  community in this position I would vote for him again.

Please leave me out from the example.

--
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
            - verba volant, scripta manent -
   (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>