PMC Voting rules (was: Release Plan approval clarifications)

[Sam Ruby <ru...@us.ibm.com>]

James Duncan Davidson wrote:
>
> The one piece of concern that might lead to grumpy is that we
> have PMC members calling for votes and setting deadlines on
> those votes ad hoc. In most diplomatic groups, members of the
> group move to vote on things, chairs preside over the vote and
> enforce the deadlines. We've never said it formally that we
> have to obey any particular protocol (such as Robert's Rules)
> but I would encourage that we follow the lead of the Chair in
> such cases (easier for me to say now that Sam is the Acting
> Chair!). Or formalize that any PMC member may call for a vote
> and that such vote is a 3/7 day vote etc.

My preference is that the _default_ for PMC votes be that they occur in the
monthly PMC meetings.  Agenda posted one week in advance.  Minutes posted
after the meeting.

The vote for a new chair was explicitly deferred from the previous meeting.
Hans gave his rationalle for the need for an "emergency vote" at this time
in order to facilitate the vote on the Tomcat 3.3 proposal.  Both are fine
as long as they don't become standard practice.

I've chaired committees before, but always in person.  That clearly won't
be practical here, except perhaps once or twice a year.  We've talked about
holding the remainder of the meetings via teleconference.  I'll be glad to
set that up, and I believe that could work if limited to the PMC and
invited guests.  I have concerns about it not working if opened to a wider
audience, and would be willing to entertain suggestions for alternate
venues (e.g. IRC) which might be more suitable for wider participation.

- Sam Ruby

Re: PMC Voting rules (was: Release Plan approval clarifications)

[Hans Bergsten <ha...@gefionsoftware.com>]

Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> James Duncan Davidson wrote:
> >
> > The one piece of concern that might lead to grumpy is that we
> > have PMC members calling for votes and setting deadlines on
> > those votes ad hoc. In most diplomatic groups, members of the
> > group move to vote on things, chairs preside over the vote and
> > enforce the deadlines. We've never said it formally that we
> > have to obey any particular protocol (such as Robert's Rules)
> > but I would encourage that we follow the lead of the Chair in
> > such cases (easier for me to say now that Sam is the Acting
> > Chair!). Or formalize that any PMC member may call for a vote
> > and that such vote is a 3/7 day vote etc.
> 
> My preference is that the _default_ for PMC votes be that they occur in the
> monthly PMC meetings.  Agenda posted one week in advance.  Minutes posted
> after the meeting.
> 
> The vote for a new chair was explicitly deferred from the previous meeting.
> Hans gave his rationalle for the need for an "emergency vote" at this time
> in order to facilitate the vote on the Tomcat 3.3 proposal.  Both are fine
> as long as they don't become standard practice.
> 
> I've chaired committees before, but always in person.  That clearly won't
> be practical here, except perhaps once or twice a year.  We've talked about
> holding the remainder of the meetings via teleconference.  I'll be glad to
> set that up, and I believe that could work if limited to the PMC and
> invited guests.  I have concerns about it not working if opened to a wider
> audience, and would be willing to entertain suggestions for alternate
> venues (e.g. IRC) which might be more suitable for wider participation.

+1. This all sounds fine to me.

Hans
-- 
Hans Bergsten		hans@gefionsoftware.com
Gefion Software		http://www.gefionsoftware.com
Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com