On 23 August 2012 19:22, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > I suggest that the initial Project Management Committee (PMC) needs to be > identified before the election of a Chair from that body is undertaken.
The initial proposed PMC for other podlings has usually been taken from the PPMC membership, but dropping any inactive (or unwilling) members. > Also, this seems like a very good time to review, for the benefit of all > here, what the duties of PMC members are and, with respect to that, what the > specific responsibilities of the Chair are and what the special standing of > the Chair is so its accountability can be carried out. http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc-members http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair The PMC chair is a position of responsibility (to the PMC and Board) rather than authority over the PMC. > - Dennis > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:36 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [DISCUSS] Proposed PMC Chair nomination process > > Now that the community graduation ballot has passed, one of our next > tasks is to identify a PMC Chair. > > You can read about the duties of a PMC Chair here: > http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair > > How do we want to do this? > > A strawman proposal: > > 1) Nominations would be open for 72 hours. Anyone can nominate > someone for the role. Self-nominations are fine. And of course > nominations can be declined. > > 2) If there is only one nomination, then we are done, provided there > are no sustained objections. > > 3) If there is more than one nomination we discuss on the list for > another 72 hours. Discussion would primarily be on ooo-dev, but some > subjects might be directed to ooo-private. > > 4) If after 72-hours discussion there are still two or more nominees > then we vote. Everyone would be welcome to vote, but binding votes > would be from PPMC members. If there are more than 2 candidates we > would probably need to use a more complicated voting system, or have a > run-off vote if none of the nominees receive an outright majority. > > Any improvements or alternatives to this basic scheme? > > Regards, > > -Rob >
