> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 21 December 2004 05:30
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
> > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > > Stephen McConnell wrote:
> > > > * 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
> > 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
> > 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.
> Actually, it says that the that the PMC shall consist of at least one
> officer of the corporation, who shall be designated the PMC Chair, and
> "shall be primarily responsible for project(s) managed by such
> and he or she shall establish rules and procedures for the day to day
> management of project(s) for which the committee is responsible."
And as a PMC Member you would be completely familiar with the rules and
procedures of the day to day management.
> > [The PMC Chair] actively and publicly took actions without
> > the Avalon PMC and on at least one occasion justified this on the
> > grounds that the PMC would not agree with his position.
> Aaron consulted with the PMC on every occasion that I can recall.
Interestingly - you were actually there when he said that!
> In the
> case of migrating Phoenix to SVN, you can hardly claim that he made a
> unilateral decision. Probably more than anyone, I am the resident
> pain-in-arse about preserving ALL history, which I consider a
> asset. And I am absolutely unapologetic about
> > 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
> You raised similar issues in the past. If it comes down to it, the
> Membership owns the Foundation. The Foundation is run for the Public
> as best we can, and those who demonstrate merit are invited to become
> Members, Officers and Directors.
If this is the best that the foundation can do or is this the simpler
scenario of an organization incapable of looking at the facts and asking
itself if it couldn't do better?
> > a committee should have the ability to remove a chair
> The PMC lacks the authority to do so.
Which is why it was presented as a recommendation! Do you see an
inherent problem with the notion of a Chair accountable to the
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]