On 12/2/13 11:46 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>> me to be a good place to state that. When putting the guidelines >>together consensus was that the chair should >> be for a year or reviewed every year. > >When I voted I took the guideline to mean: for at least a year and >automatically extended by a year if the chair chose to stay on, unless >the PMC took a vote to replace him/her. And that's why I mentioned that I think this wording needs fixing. It should do a better job of explaining the details. The way the words are currently written, I could just keep saying I want to renew every year forever. It should not just be up to me to decide whether to continue, the rest of the PMC should have a say. The Ant guidelines say: "The PMC may consider the position of PMC chair annually and if supported by 2/3 Majority may recommend a new chair to the board" but doesn't really say how they decide who to recommend (also 2/3 or consensus?). We don't say that either, but I think it should be consensus minus the candidates? Anyway, my work day is over. If others agree the words need fixing I'll propose some ideas in a new thread tomorrow. -Alex
