Re: [proposal:PMC] Member and Chair elections

Berin Loritsch wrote:
> I am bringing this back up, because it seems that we are in agreement
> on the PMC voting procedures.  Now we need to look at the PMC
> membership rules (governing future PMC membership processes).
> 
> This is only a starting point--and it is designed to get us moving
> forward with PMC/Chair policies.  I have changed my original
> proposal on Chair term from 3 months to 6 months at the request of
> several developers.
> 
> 
> PMC Membership
> --------------
> 
> * PMC members are nominated by the community, and voted in by
>   the existing PMC.

community = mailing list || committers || PMC members?

I assume you're implying (community = mailing list) +1

> * The PMC nominees must be an active committer in Avalon, or a
>   project that depends on Avalon.

+1 this is a rule that the PMC should apply, since it can be a bit 
subjective.

> * PMC nominees that come from dependant projects must be voted
>   to the position by their community.  The community must have
>   at a minimum six (6) active committers.  The dependant project
>   must have a code dependency on Avalon (i.e. at a minimum
>   requiring Framework).

Why 6? (just curious about the number)

+1

> * The PMC votes the nominee in.

+1

> Chair Membership
> ----------------
> 
> * Any of the PMC members are eligible for the chair position.

+1

> * The community decides which of the PMC members are nominated
>   to the position.

+1

> * The PMC makes the final vote on the Chair based on the
>   nominated individuals.

+0

+1 for the committers making the final vote.

I would add that the PMC Chair should then be "ratified" by the 
[email protected], which can decide also to not accept the nomination.

This is because the Chair is the reference to the board, so it appointed 
by the board. I would assume that 99,999% of the time the board would 
ratify it.

> * The chair position will be up for revote every 6 months.
>   NOTE: I don't want to impose any limitation on the number
>   of consecutive terms a chair can serve.  If someone is
>   doing a good job and acting responsibly in the position,
>   then why mess with a good thing? 

+1

>   I.e. if Nicola proves
>   himself to be nonpartial and really a benefit to the
>   community in this position I would vote for him again.

Please leave me out from the example.

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   [email protected]
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------