> On 2 May 2018, at 11:49, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2 May 2018 at 10:33, Jan Iversen <jancasacon...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On 2 May 2018, at 11:09, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Top-posting. >>> >>> Surely any discussion which relates to personnel should take place on >>> the private@ list? >> >> Surely not, a discussion/vote for a new chair is something that involves the >> whole community and not only the PMC. > > AFAIK discussion on new chairs are held on private@ > Whilst the decision may affect the community, AFAIK a chair must be a > member of the PMC (or an ASF member)
There are no rules saying that such a discussion has to be private@, and in all the projects where I have been involved (some of them as chair) the discussions and votes were public. I am aware that only votes from PMC members count, but hearing opinions from everybody cannot do any harm. I you recall, when I offered to be chair, I was not even committer, but that was seen as a formality and I share that view. Look at the board reports, we present: ## PMC changes: - Jan Iversen was added to the PMC on Wed Mar 15 2017 ## Committer base changes: - Last committer addition was Jan Iversen at Thu Mar 16 <x-apple-data-detectors://1> 2017 That just goes to show, being practical sometimes are the better way. > >> It is correct questions relating to specific persons are kept in private, >> typical examples are discussions about inviting a committer or more rarely a >> discussion about the behaviour of a committer. Neither of these are the case >> here, if you read private@ I made my intentions clear a while ago, and are >> now putting my intentions into effect. > > Agreed. > >> If you refer to my description of the reasons, I have kept strictly to >> public fact, and not expressed my personal opinion. If you feel I >> overstepped the line somewhere in my mail and revealed not already public >> information, please be specific. > > I am not saying that you have. > >> You cannot deny me the right to give reasons why I am leaving this project. >> Actually your email just confirms my decision. > > That is not what I am saying at all. > Sorry that you have got that impression. > > However I think it would be wrong to discuss a new chair on a public list. > That's all I am saying. You may of course think as you wish, but being the one who is retiring, I believe it was my decision where to post the information. If you want to make statements/discussions in private@ it is not a problem. I am sure you have a reason for keeping this on private@, maybe you should explain that on private@. As for me, I have nothing to hide, and prefer to involve the whole community and have a public record. rgds Jan I > >> rgds >> Jan I. >> >> >>> >>> On 1 May 2018 at 21:46, Jan Iversen <j...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> 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 >>
