> Stamatis wrote: > > 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?
I should probably have used the word "suggestions" rather than "nominations". The PMC should have a free discussion, reach consensus, and then vote to formalize the result. The decision is for the PMC alone to make, and the number of nominations a person receives should not affect the result. > 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. I was proposing that nominations and ensuing discussion go to private@ because a public discussion of candidates is unseemly and potentially divisive, but I wanted non-PMC members to have some input. Plus, the discussion is often kicked off by the 'state of the project' email, which is and should remain on dev@. But what you suggest is not unreasonable. > Another point worth clarifying is if we can nominate someone who > has already been a PMC chair in the past (including the current > chair). I agree that current and past chairs should be eligible. In other words, no term limits, but an election every year. Julian On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 12:31 PM Stamatis Zampetakis <zabe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > > > > >
