On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:04 AM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org > > > wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Andrew Purtell > > <andrew.purt...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > ...Certainly some projects have a de facto lead that coincide with > Chair > > and I'm pretty sure > > > in some cases that is an honorary arrangement agreed to by the > > community.... > > > > *loud red alarms going off all over my brain* > > > > If that's the case, such projects should make sure they implement a > > regular PMC chair rotation. Or be prepared to go down in flames once > > that leader changes their mind and no one has a clue how their project > > runs. > > big +1....actually the chair rotation is something we should consider > having as a rule (and allow deviations for good reasins). >
I cannot see the Board ever mandating chair rotations. That is up to the community. As long as the chair/VP remains administrative, then there isn't a problem. We have *many* chairs across the Foundation (myself included) that have been in their position for many years. It works well because we *support* the project, rather than any attempt to direct, steer, or lead based upon that position. The VP is the link between a project's needs and the Foundation's support for that project, along with bidirectional communication. For projects that don't understand the difference between "supportive" and "lead": yeah, they could use a dose of trout-slapping and a chair rotation or three. Cheers, -g
