It makes perfect sense to send nominations to the private list. Assuming that multiple people are nominated, we should maybe agree on how to proceed with the vote. Do we consider everyone and settle on a majority vote or do we vote for the one who was nominated by more people?
Both options are very similar but the difference may be significant if we count nominations from PMC and non-PMC members the same way. If we say that PMC nominations matter the most then probably we could move the whole discussion to the private list (including the initial email) since there is no strong incentive for non-PMC members to participate; it will not really affect the outcome. Another point worth clarifying is if we can nominate someone who has already been a PMC chair in the past (including the current chair). Every Calcite chair since Calcite's graduation from the incubation has served exactly once and I think this is also part of the tradition. I like the fact that new people are getting familiar with this role and it is important for the future of the project but we shouldn't put this as a strict requirement for the nomination process. Best, Stamatis On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 9:00 PM Michael Mior <mm...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 from me as well. > -- > Michael Mior > mm...@apache.org > > > Le dim. 3 juil. 2022 à 19:46, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> a écrit : > > > 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 > > >
