On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > I suggest that the initial Project Management Committee (PMC) needs to be > identified before the election of a Chair from that body is undertaken. >
There is a bootstrapping issue with that suggestion. The PMC does not exist until the ASF Board creates it. And the Board has veto power over that list. So all we have at this time, formally at least, is the PPMC. > Also, this seems like a very good time to review, for the benefit of all > here, what the duties of PMC members are and, with respect to that, what the > specific responsibilities of the Chair are and what the special standing of > the Chair is so its accountability can be carried out. > Indeed. That is why my 2nd sentence was to point to a link that describes exactly this. -Rob > - Dennis > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:36 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: [DISCUSS] Proposed PMC Chair nomination process > > Now that the community graduation ballot has passed, one of our next > tasks is to identify a PMC Chair. > > You can read about the duties of a PMC Chair here: > http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair > > How do we want to do this? > > A strawman proposal: > > 1) Nominations would be open for 72 hours. Anyone can nominate > someone for the role. Self-nominations are fine. And of course > nominations can be declined. > > 2) If there is only one nomination, then we are done, provided there > are no sustained objections. > > 3) If there is more than one nomination we discuss on the list for > another 72 hours. Discussion would primarily be on ooo-dev, but some > subjects might be directed to ooo-private. > > 4) If after 72-hours discussion there are still two or more nominees > then we vote. Everyone would be welcome to vote, but binding votes > would be from PPMC members. If there are more than 2 candidates we > would probably need to use a more complicated voting system, or have a > run-off vote if none of the nominees receive an outright majority. > > Any improvements or alternatives to this basic scheme? > > Regards, > > -Rob >
