> On 2 May 2018, at 11:09, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Top-posting. > > Surely any discussion which relates to personnel should take place on > the private@ list?
Surely not, a discussion/vote for a new chair is something that involves the whole community and not only the PMC. It is correct questions relating to specific persons are kept in private, typical examples are discussions about inviting a committer or more rarely a discussion about the behaviour of a committer. Neither of these are the case here, if you read private@ I made my intentions clear a while ago, and are now putting my intentions into effect. If you refer to my description of the reasons, I have kept strictly to public fact, and not expressed my personal opinion. If you feel I overstepped the line somewhere in my mail and revealed not already public information, please be specific. You cannot deny me the right to give reasons why I am leaving this project. Actually your email just confirms my decision. rgds Jan I. > > On 1 May 2018 at 21:46, Jan Iversen <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> Hi >> >> I am truly sorry having to write this email. I am embarrassed of not being >> able to keep my promise and stay as a long-term chair, but sometimes you >> have to ask yourself is it worth the time spent and instead use time where >> it is makes a difference. >> >> Considering we have a very silent community and the current site maintenance >> was unacceptable to me, I spent a couple of days to make my life easier and >> asked for opinions from the community before changing the production site, >> after that our list drowned in emails from 2 pmc members pursuing other >> solutions. >> >> This is not the first time we have a situation like this, a while ago we had >> long discussion with -1 flowing around, between the same 2 PMC members about >> rewriting rules etc, where finally (I believe partly due to my intervention) >> consensus was reached. >> >> I volunteered to be chair and was clear it meant I had not only to file >> board reports but also do the bulk part of retiring projects. I did not >> volunteer to spend endless hours trying to get consensus or to get simple >> changes agreed on. >> >> I proposed a very simple solution, but have accepted that the other 2 >> solutions each have advantages, so I might have continued had I believed in >> the possibility of consensus and an, for me, easy to maintain solution. >> There are no signs of convergence and a vote on technical solutions are bad, >> apart from the fact that I am convinced both solutions would receive a -1. >> Changes are high, that the current deadlock will end with no change at all. >> >> I humbly accept my failure to help bring consensus and progress to the >> attic, so I hereby announce my retirement as chair/pmc/committer. >> >> I am hereby starting a discussion on who should be the next chair. The >> discussion will run until 13 may 2018, where I will start the formal vote. >> The result of the vote will be added to the agenda for the board June >> meeting. In case we have no positive result of the vote, the board will be >> asked to appoint a new chair. >> >> The 2 PMC members have each promised to support a future site, so it is >> natural for me to propose Henkp and Sebb as chair candidates, both have >> used significant time to implement technical elegant solutions. >> >> Ball is rolling, let the community decide. >> >> rgds >> Jan I >> >> Sent from my iPad
