On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Andrew Rist <andrew.r...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > I would like to nominate Andrea Pescetti. > > Andrea is one of the most active and well respected members of the > project, > > and I believe he would make a great PMC Chair. > > > > +1. > > It is easy to offend people by actively working on this project. > > It is easy not to offend people by doing nothing real. > > But to actively contribute to the project, and to avoid offending or > being offended, this is a talent and a temperament that especially > recommends Andrea for this position. > Agree 100%, it would be great to have Andrea as PMC Chair. Roberto > > -Rob > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > On 9/27/2012 2:42 PM, Andrew Rist wrote: > >> > >> Moving right along... > >> > >> I'd like to restart the discussion over choosing a PMC Chair. The > >> previous proposed process was discussed in: > >> http://markmail.org/message/mrgnjtiuum5bovjd > >> I'd like to take up where that left off. > >> > >> Here is the process (with minor modifications) from the original: > >> > >> You can read about the duties of a PMC Chair here: > >> http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#chair > >> > >> 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, > >> there will be a run-off vote between the top two nominees if none of > >> the nominees receive an outright majority. > >> > >> > >> (note: the last item was changed from the original - nothing more > >> complicated than a two way run-off is needed, as it is unlikely we have > more > >> than two nominees.) > >> I think this process is straight forward enough that we should just > begin > >> the process now. > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> > >> > > > -- ==== This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
