> > 3) Committers nominate/Committers vote (most open option)
+1
Especially if we make this active committers (wrote to a CVS in the last
six months).
Then the PMC members elect the chair, and any other offices within the
PMC.
It would be important is that anyone nominated for the PMC affirm their
nomination before a vote, since accepting the role means accepting
additional demands on your time.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> The ASF board is completely re-elected on an annual basis. Members
> nominate/Members vote. This is probably the system I most lean towards,
> but it does have one problem: while it may elect the "wisest" people, it
> does not guarantee that the people elected have any familiarity with the
> issues surrounding your particular code base.
I believe any Jakarta-level voting should revolve around "one committer,
one vote".
Personally, I don't see that technical familiarity with a codebase is an
issue. The primary role of the PMC is to ensure each subproject "stays
within the bounds of the law". The technical decisions are specifically
left to the committers for each subproject, and Roy specially reiterated
that the PMC itself is not to make technical decisions. We're just the
suits ;-), and should leave the engineering to the engineers closest to
the problem.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
