On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:13AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > Le 12/10/15 20:02, Konstantin Boudnik a écrit : > > +1 on both. > > I think the good way of looking at the Chair from PMC side > > is > - > a bureaucrat, who's responsible to file board@ reports on time and carry > on > some other functions like updating PMC records, etc. > - a > neutral mediator shall any conflicts within the community arise > > A > good practice which worked in a few of projects is for the current chair > > to start a [DISCUSS] to nominate a new chair every year or so. If no > > nominations were made, the current chair simply stays for another periodk > > I concur. Chair rotation is *good*. It has many advantages : > > - first of all, it helps people to understand what are the duties of a > chair. > - it enforces the fact that we (The ASF) don't follow the BDLF thingy. > - you don't get burned out too quickly ;-) > > > If a quick chair rotation does not necessarily sounds good (one year is > pretty short...-, 2 years is ok. I suggest that the chairman strep down > without being requested to do so, too. That does not mean the PMC would > not ask him to stay there ! > > From my own perspective, I have been chairman fo ApacheDS and MINA, and > I was pleased to step down and left the opportunity for some other > prominent PMC members to fulfill the position ! I didn't felt empewored > by being the chairman, and I didn't felt diminushed not being the > chairman. Although, from a personnal POV, it was a great thing : I > learned (a bit) about being patient !
Well said! And resonates with my experience as the Bigtop PMC Chair: was nice to let the load off my shoulders too ;) Cos
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
