Il 20/01/2015 00:29, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
On 19 Jan 2015, at 13:32, Kay Schenk wrote:
I am probably seeming very disagreeable here.
... Andrea and others believe that the election
process has proceeded as it ought to have, with enough time allowed
for discussion and then vote. But you argue the contrary, and it
seems that a couple of others share your views.
Just a note on this (dead) discussion: I'm not planning any discussion
time between the end of (self-)nominations and the start of the vote. If
you believe that a dedicated discussion phase must really be added,
please request it now rather than complaining later. I know it would be
"just three more days", but I'm not willing to allocate them unless
someone takes the responsibility to request them (and, ideally, ensure
productivity of the discussion).
The sequence I envisioned was: A. Election; B. PMC
re-evaluation; C. New election if need be or is desired. There is no
absolute set term for the chair.
This is now known as action #1 and #2. And indeed this is the way to go
(except that I wouldn't like to see a re-election in one month, since we
take more than one month to elect a Chair).
Finally, I also felt that Andrea wanted to step down and do it before
February. But as he's recently underscored, he's not working on a
deadline, just a desire.
As things are now, and with a nominations round open, it is likely that
we manage to choose my successor in time for the February Board meeting.
If we manage to start a vote, I'll probably accompany it with a
statement saying that it is not an option that I extend my term once again.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
