On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:36:36PM -0500, David Nalley wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Chip Childers > > I'd also point out, as one of our mentors did in the private list > > discussion, that the chair role is largely an administrative one. > > > > And while we're at it, the private discussion brought up the idea of > > re-introducing a rotation (or at least a "term"), which would allow > > for a regular opportunity to recommend a change to the board. I'm not > > sure that it's required, given the nature of the job... but does anyone > > have an opinion? > > > > -chip > > I'm personally 'meh' on this. > As you noted the role is largely an administrative role than fearful > power and authority; and I am inclined to have a person, particularly > if they are bearing the job well, to continue with it until such time > as they no longer wish to bear it. > > I do understand the point that 'regular' rotation can provide the > perception of the project not being 'controlled' by a single entity. > From inside the project, I don't see that, but perhaps outside the > project that is an important consideration. > > --David >
David - your opinion was shifted during discussions on the private list. Care to share an update? For the record - I'm for adding a term, where the option of switching the chair (which is largely an administrative role anyway) is regularly discussed. I'd propose annually. -chip
