> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 December 2004 08:42
> To: community@apache.org
> Cc: community@apache.org
> Subject: RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
> At 08:30 PM 12/16/2004, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >Concerning our decision making processes, I have a couple of
> >questions...
> >
> >  * What do you think is the role of a PMC in our decision
> >    making process?
> They have absolute decision making process within the board's
> mandate for their project.


According to Greg Stein this should not be the case.  Greg holds to the
opinion that the appointed Chair is the PMC and that the members are
simply an artificial construct.

I should point out that Greg's position seems to contradict section 6.3
of the bylaws in that it is stated that a PMC is a committee with a
designated chairman.  The bylaws also seem to clearly state that the
committee is responsible for active management.  

In the Avalon case-study the Chair largely ignored the notion of
committee responsibility and chose instead to exercise privileges
related to the role of officer of the foundation.  In doing so he
actively and publicly took actions without consulting the Avalon PMC and
on at least one occasion justified this on the grounds that the PMC
would not agree with his position.

IMO there are two related issues here:

  a) the lack of accountability of the Chair towards the committee
  b) the reluctance of the Board to properly recognize the PMC as the 
     responsible entity

I think that there are practices that can be adopted to address these
issues.  For example a committee should have the ability to remove a
chair (for example via a vote of no-confidence) and such an action
should be recognized as within the authority of the committee.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to