On 12/3/13 2:38 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> OK, but how does the PMC "oust" the current chair? >The PMC would only have to oust the chair in extreme circumstances. I >don't think the PMC actually can remove the chair as the chair is >appointed by the board. In practise I would assume that the process would >be that a PMC member (or more) would need to contact the board and ask >for the chair to be replaced along with a very good reason. I'm wondering if the board really does appoint the char as much as approves the PMC recommendation. If we change chairs, we only provide notice and wait 72 hours. AFAIK, there is no action from the board required. This could just be another copy/paste problem of bad text like the term "lazy majority". > >> We can't require consensus in order to start a vote or else a >>power-hungry chair would just >> veto that attempt. >A veto is not valid unless it's a good reason. Consensus is not required >to start a vote but having an open discussion is certainly more >beneficial and makes the vote more likely to succeed. > >> I don't think a single PMC member should be able to start a vote either >Why not and what's the alternative? Because there should be some discussion first. Ant is using 2/3 Majority in order to start a new vote. > >> We don't say what kind of vote is going to be used to select a new >>chair either. >The guidelines state it is Consensus Approval (ie 3+1 and no -1s) but >that assumes only one candidate. Most other projects I've seen use single >transferable vote voting ie number the candidates in the order you want. OK, I missed that earlier. So you think the language we have is clear enough? -Alex
