Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Berin Loritsch wrote:From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Berin Loritsch wrote: [...]* Projects that depend on Avalon have the ability to nominate one representative each to the PMC.
The idea is nice, but don't think it would scale. If 40 projects start depending on Avalon? And depending on which grounds?
I repeat, I like the idea, let's see if we can make this thing into something.
The idea is to provide a mechanism where other projects can have representation. Perhaps we can limit the elegible projects to those who have a minimum number of active committers? I.e. if it has a healthy community like JAMES or Cocoon, they should be eligible to have representation. If it is a one man project or a two-three man project, then they should be involved as individuals.
Hmmm... if representation is about making themselves heard they already do it on the mailing lists. But I think you are talking about full voting rights in the PMS, and I like the idea of having this kind of concrete representation.
In many states there are two parliamentary branches, and in some one is about regions/states. What about having an Avalon uoter-project PMC branch... hmmm, mind me, I'm really dumping my thoughts here, I like the idea and wabt to find a solution...
Ir simply stating that a certain % of the PMC is voted regularly by Avalon-using projects by voting people that are not necessarily Avalon committers.
IE every year the committers of projects that the Avalon PMC decides are part of the voting can vote let's say 20% of the PMC from people that are not necessarily part of the Avalon community.
Its easy - give the standing chair discression.
I'd also like to see the chair nominated by all the committers, not only the PMC. This would make the PMC truly representative of the community while keeping the entrance by invitation to the PMC.
Ok. How about this for the chair position: * Any of the PMC members are eligible for the chair position.
ok.
Qualification requested:
* any of the proposed PMC members are elegible for the chair position
* or, following election of the PMC members, the new PMC alects
the new chair (this feels like the best option to me) - chair
handlover occurs at the next board meeting
* The community decides which of the PMC members are nominated to the position.community as in all mailing list subscribers? ok.
Disagree - I think the chair should be elected by the PMC.
* The PMC makes the final vote on the Chair based on the nominated individuals.
I'd say the committers all, not only the PMC. The Chair, like a "president", should represent all the community, not only the PMC. Hence all can suggest the name and committers can thus "partecipate" in the PMC by taking bart in the Chair votes.
Ok, I like the principal - but if your going to go down this route - then seperate PMC memberhip elections from chair election. Get the PMC names established first, maybe let the PMC shortlist 3 candidates, then give the community the final oiption.
* The chair position will be up for revote every 3 months.
I'd say at least 6, preferably more. One year is too much, but having four chairs per year seems too much for me.
Give the chair time at least to give a couple of reports to the board.
I'm ok with 6-12 months - preferabley linke to the PMC rotation.
There is a possible issue though... the Chair now is appointed by the board, how can this be done? Should the board vote on this every time we change the chair? Hmmm...
Yep.
The standing chair stays in place until the next board meeting and his parting obligation is to annouce his/her resignation and the nomination of the new chair.
NOTE: I don't want to impose any limitation on the number of consecutive terms a chair can serve.I agree.
Dito. Cheers, Steve. -- Stephen J. McConnell OSM SARL digital products for a global economy mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
