I'd lean towards having the term start now instead of end now. I can't come up with a super convincing argument either direction though.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello folks, > > It's time we have a discussion about the position of Chair. Jan has > held office for a while now, and has done a great job of it. But our > new bylaws specify that we will hold yearly reelections. > > We have a number of options here: > > 1. We say that Jan's position started on the day the bylaws were > ratified, and in 12 months we hold an election. > > 2. We say that Jan's position is up (having already held it for more > than 12 months) and we either nominated a new Chair or we hold a vote. > > Let's try to get general consensus about which option we want to take. > If there's clear agreement, we'll move forward with that option. > > Remember: our rationale for re-electing the Chair is that we think > that doing so is beneficial for the project. Giving new people a > chance to serve a term may stimulate activity and change, and so on. > It also helps familiarise as many people as possible with all parts of > the project. > > Jan has done a sterling job, and nobody can deny it. This discussion > isn't about whether we need to replace him. It's only about when we > set the end date of his current term. Immediately or 12 months in the > future. :) > > Also, please, whatever you do, please do not reply to this email with > a nomination. Such as: "I think Monty would make a good Chair." Chair > nomination itself will happen in private on the PMC list. > > Thanks, > > -- > Noah Slater > https://twitter.com/nslater
