On Mar 2, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 02/03/2013, at 2:44 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
>
>>
>> OK - I'm going to draft this up and start a vote now.
>
> I don't want to derail the voting process, but would like to clarify this
> part:
>
> ---
> recommend a new chair through consens
On 02/03/2013, at 2:44 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
>
> OK - I'm going to draft this up and start a vote now.
I don't want to derail the voting process, but would like to clarify this part:
---
recommend a new chair through consensus via a lazy 2/3 majority
voting method. In the case that con
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 05:15:16PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Chip Childers
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:36:36PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Chip Childers
> >> > I'd also point out, as one of our mentors did in the
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Chip Childers
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:36:36PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Chip Childers
>> > I'd also point out, as one of our mentors did in the private list
>> > discussion, that the chair role is largely an adminis
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:36:36PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Chip Childers
> > I'd also point out, as one of our mentors did in the private list
> > discussion, that the chair role is largely an administrative one.
> >
> > And while we're at it, the private disc
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
> And while we're at it, the private discussion brought up the idea of
> re-introducing a rotation (or at least a "term"), which would allow
> for a regular opportunity to recommend a change to the board. I'm not
> sure that it's required, g
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Chip Childers
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:23:41PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Chip Childers
>> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Continuing the graduation discussion (you're going to see plenty of
>> > threads like this as w
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:23:41PM -0500, David Nalley wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Chip Childers
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Continuing the graduation discussion (you're going to see plenty of
> > threads like this as we head down the road), the PPMC had a discussion
> > around how
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 09:39:14PM +0100, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 9:29 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Continuing the graduation discussion (you're going to see plenty of
> > threads like this as we head down the road), the PPMC had a discussion
> > arou
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Chip Childers
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Continuing the graduation discussion (you're going to see plenty of
> threads like this as we head down the road), the PPMC had a discussion
> around how to best select the name we would recommend to the ASF board
> to be our PMC
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 09:39:14PM +0100, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> The PMC would only put one candidate forward ?
> This would make the vote on the dev list more of a ratification than a vote.
>
> Should the PMC put multiple candidates forward ?
Open to suggestions on this, but I was assuming
On Feb 22, 2013, at 9:29 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Continuing the graduation discussion (you're going to see plenty of
> threads like this as we head down the road), the PPMC had a discussion
> around how to best select the name we would recommend to the ASF board
> to be our PMC c
12 matches
Mail list logo
