On 20/01/15 00:29, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
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. P
M
C 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.
sorry for not answering earlier but I was on vacation and missed the
whole discussion ...
I will not vote right now because I believe the currently ongoing vote
shows already a clear signal. Well it is up to Louis to interpret the -1
votes on his own but I personally believe that Louis with his long
history as community manager (how it was called) is somewhat negative
contaminated and I believe he won't be the right PMC chair for the moment.
I propose a second round with hopefully more nominated candidates and it
is not necessary to have a long history in AOO. Just keep in mind the
role of the PMC and think if you can manage it. If you are motivated to
do it and help the project to move forward.
This is my personal opinion only
Juergen
