> On 19 Jan 2015, at 13:32, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am probably seeming very disagreeable here. Nope. You'll have to try harder :-)
More seriously, you point to a flaw that was not evident on an abstract level but was in practice. I had an IM conversation with Andrea over the weekend, where I proposed that I withdraw my nomination, as having several -1 obviously damaged the ideal of consensus. An objection to my doing that now is that it's not clear what would be gained. Andrea and others believe that the election process has proceeded as it ought to have, with enough time allowed for discussion and then vote. But you argue the contrary, and it seems that a couple of others share your views. I have no problems withdrawing my candidacy and asking for new round. But I do want to point out a couple of things. 1. The chair role is not at all like that of OpenOffice.org, itself a kind of blur. This role is far more precisely defined and is an admin role. It actually rather resembles some of what I did while at CollabNet, and that included a lot of issue cleaning, tracking, infra stuff, permissions management, and so on. That I see some value beyond this is my take on it; as you know, Jan, for instance, has another. 2. I thought that the PMC could be reevaluated, though I'm by no means sure in what way, exactly. But I don't need to be; others have good ideas, I believe, or at least ideas that could be aired. I thought, and I think I was not alone in in this, that any re-doing of the PMC, however, should logically proceed *after* the election, as the candidate is elected by the binding votes of those making up the existing PMC. The sequence I envisioned was: A. Election; B. PMC re-evaluation; C. New election if need be or is desired. There is no absolute set term for the chair. Finally, I also felt that Andrea wanted to step down and do it before February. But as he's recently underscored, he's not working on a deadline, just a desire. All that said, if we do want to go with a new round, starting from scratch, then suggest a sequence and timing. Personally, it might be cleaner—and also save time, in the end, to wait out this round, and if it failed as an election, *then* start afresh. In this event, then we'd start with the new process next week, I'd guess. Best louis --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
