+1 I think this is a good idea. We have a lot of capable PMC members and
it would be of great benefit to the project if all of them were
considered during the PMC chair selection process.
On 4/07/2022 9:46 am, Julian Hyde wrote:
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
