On Tue, 1 May 2018, Jan Iversen wrote:
Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 22:46:41 +0200
From: Jan Iversen <j...@apache.org>
To: general@attic.apache.org
Subject: Discussion to select chair candidates followed by a vote starting may
13 2018.
Hi Jan,
I thought the plan was to reach consensus, and otherwise vote.
Let me try to reach consensus this way :
Hi Sebb,
Can we agree to just let Jan pick a winner ?
and for us to forever hold our peace (regarding the choice)?
This is a bike-shed problem ;
any simple solution is ok.
[ Forgive my ignorance if this is against etiquette.
How does a PMC resolve bike-shed problems ?
]
Regards,
Henk Penning
------------------------------------------------------------ _
Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403 _/ \_
Faculty of Science, Utrecht University T +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \
Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penn...@uu.nl \_/
Hi
I am truly sorry having to write this email. I am embarrassed of not being able
to keep my promise and stay as a long-term chair, but sometimes you have to ask
yourself is it worth the time spent and instead use time where it is makes a
difference.
Considering we have a very silent community and the current site maintenance
was unacceptable to me, I spent a couple of days to make my life easier and
asked for opinions from the community before changing the production site,
after that our list drowned in emails from 2 pmc members pursuing other
solutions.
This is not the first time we have a situation like this, a while ago we had
long discussion with -1 flowing around, between the same 2 PMC members about
rewriting rules etc, where finally (I believe partly due to my intervention)
consensus was reached.
I volunteered to be chair and was clear it meant I had not only to file board
reports but also do the bulk part of retiring projects. I did not volunteer to
spend endless hours trying to get consensus or to get simple changes agreed on.
I proposed a very simple solution, but have accepted that the other 2 solutions
each have advantages, so I might have continued had I believed in the
possibility of consensus and an, for me, easy to maintain solution. There are
no signs of convergence and a vote on technical solutions are bad, apart from
the fact that I am convinced both solutions would receive a -1. Changes are
high, that the current deadlock will end with no change at all.
I humbly accept my failure to help bring consensus and progress to the attic,
so I hereby announce my retirement as chair/pmc/committer.
I am hereby starting a discussion on who should be the next chair. The
discussion will run until 13 may 2018, where I will start the formal vote. The
result of the vote will be added to the agenda for the board June meeting. In
case we have no positive result of the vote, the board will be asked to appoint
a new chair.
The 2 PMC members have each promised to support a future site, so it is natural
for me to propose Henkp and Sebb as chair candidates, both have used
significant time to implement technical elegant solutions.
Ball is rolling, let the community decide.
rgds
Jan I
Sent from my iPad
