On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >> I'm not comfortable having a PMC Chair election and nomination on ooo-dev. >> > > It appears the IPMC was able to do this for their own Chair. > >> I also agree that we should form the PMC membership first. >> > > See my response to Dennis on this. There is no PMC here, only a PPMC. >
Or maybe think of it this way; in the end we're deciding on a graduation resolution that has three main items: a scope, a PMC and a PMC Chair. This is a single resolution. Whose votes are binding on whether to send this resolution to the IPMC? The proposed PMC you think? That would be circular. Five of us could then just nominate ourselves as the PMC, vote a Chair and send that along. IMHO, we should base this in the ASF governance, which is PPMC appointed by IPMC, created by the ASF Board, which are elected by the ASF Members. Creating a new voting body out of nothing does not seem ideal. -Rob >> Regards, >> Dave >> >> On Aug 23, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> - 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 >>> >>
