On 01/05/2019 12:06, Myrle Krantz wrote: > When talking about formalizing our D&I effort, there have been essentially > three options under discussion: > > * Make it a sub-committee of ComDev. > * Make it a president's committee. > * Make it it's own PMC. > > The current proposal is to make it a president's committee. > > I'm not sure what the advantages and disadvantages of each approach is. > I'd appreciate your thoughts. What do the powers, freedoms, and > responsibilities of a committee look in each of these alternatives? What > are the advantages and disadvantages with respect to our goals with D&I?
>From a "Demonstrating the ASF is taking D&I seriously" PoV I think D&I needs to be on every board agenda. That means it needs to report the board every month. Of the options above, only a president's committee meets that criteria. A board committee would also meet that criteria. Broadly, responsibilities only vary by reporting process / frequency. In terms of powers, I think any of the proposed structures above would provide the necessary authority since part of forming the structure would involve delegating powers. A board committee has significantly more power. It can do *anything* the board can do (it also requires that a board member is on the committee). I don't think the additional authority is necessary but I do wonder if reporting directly to the board (rather than through the president) would enhance the "The ASF is taking D&I seriously" message. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
