Note that the VP can take action whenever needed, however needed. The VP is the Officer representing the community, and performs needed actions with their input. The notion of voting and consensus is *preferred* over a VP's unilateral decisions, but not absolutely required. The VP does not need (3) votes to put the resolution before the Board. If the VP is absent, then I cannot see the Board calling a foul.
Thus, take Niclas' advice and place an Attic resolution on the agenda. They're not a star chamber, and are quite understanding :-) Cheers, -g On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 12:44 PM Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: > > As this appeared on public list, and that the reason for moving to Attic > is often lack of PMC members present. So, I suggest that the Resolution is > added to the agenda and if any Board member has a differing idea of how it > should happen, it can be raised. > > Niclas > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 5:33 PM lewis john mcgibbney <lewi...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> board@, >> The OCW PMC are struggling to obtain enough VOTE's to conclude an open >> VOTE [0] on retiring the OCW project. >> As you can see two PMC members (joyce@ and lewismc@) have VOTE'd +1 with >> no other VOTE's cast. >> We are therefore looking for assistance from the Board in moving this >> situation forward. >> Thank you >> >> lewismc >> >> [0] https://s.apache.org/5zlqf >> >> -- >> http://home.apache.org/~lewismc/ >> http://people.apache.org/keys/committer/lewismc >> >
