There has been some discussion in the Arrow PMC about rotating the PMC Chair (also known as the project VP) every year. I wanted to raise the topic here for discussion among Arrow committers and within the broader Arrow community.
Quite a few Apache projects have adopted a policy where they choose a new Chair on a regular basis. This has several advantages. First, it helps avoid the perception that the project has a BDFL [1]. Second, it broadens the skills of the people in the project, exposing them to the workings of the Apache Board. Third, it can drive cultural change in the project, because different leaders have different styles. To be clear, a PMC Chair has very little actual power. Their main role is to keep the Board informed, by submitting quarterly reports. Decisions are made by the PMC, and the Chair's vote has no more power than any other vote. But the perception is that the Chair speaks with authority and sets the agenda, and perception tends to become reality. In Calcite, for example, we have adopted a policy (without writing it down as bylaws) where we choose a new Chair around the project's anniversary, in October every year. Around the same time, the Chair starts a “State of the Project" discussion thread where we discuss the challenges and opportunities for the project. It has worked extremely well. We now have 5 current and former chairs, all of whom are active in the project, and all of whom can speak authoritatively for the project as "Former PMC chair, Apache Calcite”. I think such a scheme would be of benefit to Arrow. What do you all think? Julian [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life
