Le 12/10/15 20:02, Konstantin Boudnik a écrit : > +1 on both. > > I think the good way of looking at the Chair from PMC side is > > - a bureaucrat, who's responsible to file board@ reports on time and carry on > some other functions like updating PMC records, etc. > - a neutral mediator shall any conflicts within the community arise > > A good practice which worked in a few of projects is for the current chair > to start a [DISCUSS] to nominate a new chair every year or so. If no > nominations were made, the current chair simply stays for another periodk
I concur. Chair rotation is *good*. It has many advantages : - first of all, it helps people to understand what are the duties of a chair. - it enforces the fact that we (The ASF) don't follow the BDLF thingy. - you don't get burned out too quickly ;-) If a quick chair rotation does not necessarily sounds good (one year is pretty short...-, 2 years is ok. I suggest that the chairman strep down without being requested to do so, too. That does not mean the PMC would not ask him to stay there ! From my own perspective, I have been chairman fo ApacheDS and MINA, and I was pleased to step down and left the opportunity for some other prominent PMC members to fulfill the position ! I didn't felt empewored by being the chairman, and I didn't felt diminushed not being the chairman. Although, from a personnal POV, it was a great thing : I learned (a bit) about being patient ! My 2 cts
