On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > Funny. > > I imagine that if the Board were to take any surprising action, it would be > by declining the request for approval of the TLP, along with recommendations > for any cure. > > In any case, the board can veto anything, whether done in the open or not, > whether the list of PMC is agreed or not. I suggest the idea is always for > us to govern ourselves as a community, to respect the ASF policies and > principles, and to respond to actions and instructions from the board however > they come about. > > Having a public understanding of the proposed PMC membership followed then > the designation of a Chair seems completely appropriate, despite the > possibility of lightning bolts from on high. > > If there is to be determination of the recommended Chair by lazy consensus > (and voting if necessary), should not the recommendation for the PMC also be > brought forward for concurrence on ooo-dev? >
It is all one graduation resolution. The IPMC will review it as such and approve or disapprove it as a whole. The ASF Board will treat it as such and approve it or disapprove it as a whole. I suggest we do the same. Of course, if we find there is contention on any part of the resolution then we can discuss that part separately. This is true for all parts of the resolution, not just the PMC part of it. But I would not assume in advance we will need to go through it, clause by clause, in separate votes. -Rob > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:30 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed PMC Chair nomination process > > 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 >> >
