At 13:07 08.03.2001 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
>Below is the proposed agenda. Let me know if anybody would like to propose
>any additions or changes.
>
>We also need to discuss a venue. PMC members now span three continents, so
>monthly face to face meetings are a wee bit impractical. I can arrange a
>diali n, but that largely isn't scalable. Jon has suggested IRC which I'm
>favorably inclined to. Among other things, it can facility automatic
>recording of minutes.
>
>We also need to pick a time and a recurring schedule that most people can
>make. 100% attendance of PMC members will not always be possible, but I'd
>like us to pick a time that doesn't preclude anybody from attending.
>Something like 19:00-20:00 GMT has worked for similar other meetings for
>me. It is after working hours for the UK and Europe, and before working
>hours for Austrailia, but it gives most people an opportunity.
19:00-20:00 GMT is fine for me as are most of the other times of day.
>Finally, we need a preferred day. Board meetings are the third Wednesday
>of every month. I'd like to pick a schedule that allows status to be fed
>into the board in a convenient manner. I'd also suggest avoiding Fridays
>as those times are actually Saturday morning in Austrailia.
+1
Any working day of the week is OK with me.
> = = = =
>
>1. Appointment of a Recording Secretary
>
>2. Welcoming of new members:
> Peter Donald
> Diane Holt
> Ted Husted
> Ceki Gülcü
> Geir Magnusson Jr.
> Daniel F. Savarese
> Jason van Zyl
>
>3. Old Business:
>
> 3.1 Sam: revise the scope of Jakarta
>
> 3.2 Sam: formalization of the subproject hierarcy.
>
> 3.3 Unassigned: reformat the rules for revolutionaries document from
> an email to a bylaw
>
> 3.4 James: Clarify the voting rules (specifically vetos): give some
> examples and updating the document on the web site and proposing to
> general.
>
> 3.5 James: put out a clear and separate e-mail to the tomcat mailing
> lists indicating what the criteria is for a release plan.
>
> 3.6 Unassigned: Proposal for cvs layout
>
> 3.7 James: review the bylaws.
>
>4. New Business:
>
> 4.1 Commons proposal
>
> 4.2 PMC Member election process
I intend to support any open *and* manageable voting protocol that we come up with.
The current process is manageable but gives the impression of not being open. We are
obviously not going to have a legislative, executive and judiciary branches for the
Jakarta project. Similarly, there are very valid reasons for having the PMC nominate
and vote for other PMC members. However, ideally, the Jakarta committers should
nominate and vote for new PMC members. One possibility is to separate the nomination
process from the voting process. The PMC reserves the right to nominate candidates but
all the Jakarta committers vote.
I can see only 4 possibilities:
1) PMC nominates/PMC votes (as done currently)
2) Committers nominate/PMC votes (seems me worst of two worlds)
3) Committers nominate/Committers vote (most open option)
4) PMC nominates/Committers vote (sounds a bit like an unnamed country where a
Religious Counsel of Sages decides if a given candidate is sufficiently loyal to the
state religion although the Jakarta PMC does not decide on the fate of a whole nation)
I am OK with 1, 3 and 4. I think that 1 is OK if we explain to the Jakarta
constituency why 1 was chosen instead of say 3 or 4. I like option 3 very much. We
could hold annual elections for the PMC and any committer could be a candidate and the
all Jakarta committers would vote. In a slight variation a candidate would need to be
nominated by at least one fellow committer.
Option 4 is like wanting a half-pregnancy. It goes a long way but not all the way.
So what is wrong with option 3? Can anyone see difficulties if we adopted it for the
election of PMC members? Regards, Ceki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
