My view is more positive. Louis has at least one thing in his favour - long term experience. Also I think he has a clear track record of commitment to the project in difficult times. I have had differences with him in the past, but I think that is just part of any pluralist system. I don't particularly want to be in a situation where everyone has to agree with everyone. What matters is matching experience and expertise to the job and the evidence is he knows this job is different from the previous community manager job he had with Sun. For a start he isn't getting paid to do it now.
On 20 January 2015 at 09:32, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20/01/15 00:29, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: > > > >> On 19 Jan 2015, at 13:32, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I am probably seeming very disagreeable here. > > Nope. You'll have to try harder :-) > > > > More seriously, you point to a flaw that was not evident on an abstract > level but was in practice. I had an IM conversation with Andrea over the > weekend, where I proposed that I withdraw my nomination, as having several > -1 obviously damaged the ideal of consensus. An objection to my doing that > now is that it's not clear what would be gained. Andrea and others believe > that the election process has proceeded as it ought to have, with enough > time allowed for discussion and then vote. But you argue the contrary, and > it seems that a couple of others share your views. > > > > I have no problems withdrawing my candidacy and asking for new round. > But I do want to point out a couple of things. 1. The chair role is not at > all like that of OpenOffice.org, itself a kind of blur. This role is far > more precisely defined and is an admin role. It actually rather resembles > some of what I did while at CollabNet, and that included a lot of issue > cleaning, tracking, infra stuff, permissions management, and so on. That I > see some value beyond this is my take on it; as you know, Jan, for > instance, has another. 2. I thought that the PMC could be reevaluated, > though I'm by no means sure in what way, exactly. But I don't need to be; > others have good ideas, I believe, or at least ideas that could be aired. I > thought, and I think I was not alone in in this, that any re-doing of the > PMC, however, should logically proceed *after* the election, as the > candidate is elected by the binding votes of those making up the existing > PMC. The sequence I envisioned was: A. Election; B. P > M > C re-evaluation; C. New election if need be or is desired. There is no > absolute set term for the chair. > > > > Finally, I also felt that Andrea wanted to step down and do it before > February. But as he's recently underscored, he's not working on a deadline, > just a desire. > > > > All that said, if we do want to go with a new round, starting from > scratch, then suggest a sequence and timing. Personally, it might be > cleaner—and also save time, in the end, to wait out this round, and if it > failed as an election, *then* start afresh. In this event, then we'd start > with the new process next week, I'd guess. > > > > sorry for not answering earlier but I was on vacation and missed the > whole discussion ... > > I will not vote right now because I believe the currently ongoing vote > shows already a clear signal. Well it is up to Louis to interpret the -1 > votes on his own but I personally believe that Louis with his long > history as community manager (how it was called) is somewhat negative > contaminated and I believe he won't be the right PMC chair for the moment. > > I propose a second round with hopefully more nominated candidates and it > is not necessary to have a long history in AOO. Just keep in mind the > role of the PMC and think if you can manage it. If you are motivated to > do it and help the project to move forward. > > This is my personal opinion only > > Juergen > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > -- Ian Ofqual Accredited Qualifications <https://theingots.org/community/index.php?q=qualifications> Headline points in the 2014, 2015, 2016 school league tables Baseline testing and progress measures <https://theingots.org/community/Baseline_testing_info> The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, Unit 4D Gagarin, Lichfield Road Industrial Estate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7GN. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. +44 (0)1827 305940
