As you know, Calcite has a tradition of choosing a new PMC chair (VP) each year, around the anniversary of the project's graduation[1][2]. I think this is a great tradition, but I'd like to discuss an improvement to that process.
(I'm starting the conversation now - several months after the previous vote, and several months before the next - so that it's clear that I am not criticizing the process or the outcome or previous votes.) I've noticed that the outgoing chair sends an email on dev@ saying words to the following effect: I think Xyz would be a great person to succeed me. What do you all think? (I fear that I may have started this tradition when, at the end of my tenure as first chair, I approached Jesus and asked him whether he'd be prepared to do the job[3]. Mea culpa.) After such an outright endorsement, especially on a public list, it would be churlish for someone to reply "Actually, I think Abc would be better." As a result, it's rather difficult to have an open debate, and the candidate selected by the outgoing chair tends to win unopposed. I suggest that the outgoing chair says something like It's time to change the PMC chair. Please send nominations to private@ and the PMC will discuss and vote. That would allow for several nominations, allow people to give reasons why they prefer a candidate (without disparaging other candidates), and lead to a more informed outcome. What do you think? Are there any other aspects of the election process we should change? Julian [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rmj9qm9wlol3nb7z4phddoljbgvypkrt [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/5tzb8w655pj2vo9omz20th5jnbn9zww7 [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread/y4wjdj5h1y3sypnlmhpoz9r6bkk3cv6o
