The next MacPorts management

[Bryan Blackburn]

On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 12:14:30PM -0700, Darren Weber said:
[...]
> Sounds like MacPorts has no specific policy on the process, yet.  Or is
> there a wiki page about this somewhere?
> 
> Does a term correspond to a fixed calendar date or interval?

The guide has some documentation on policy:

<http://guide.macports.org/#project.portmgr>

However, nothing about term length or specifics on how things are to be
carried out.  Hence my email to try and get a discussion on how the
community as a whole would like to see things go forward.

> 
> Is it possible for current "office bearers" to nominate for another term?

You mean a 'the current group is good' vote?  I'd say a new group of
potential people should be able to include any/all of the current portmgr
and let the community vote as we will.  The other reason for my email is
that I'd like to step down, hence at least the need for one more (if four
people continues to be preferred, see below); don't know how the others are
feeling about staying on or not.

> 
> Are self nominations accepted?

In the past at least, anyone interested would step up and say a bit about
why they'd be a good choice, so that definitely seems like a sane idea to
me.

> 
> Take care,
> Darren

On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 06:10:32PM -0400, Jeremy Lavergne said:
> Very good idea.
> 
> Having a historian of sorts to show the ropes, fix any messes, etc.

When the current portmgr took over, James, Juan, and Marcus were kind enough
to stick around to help us out with any initial issues that cropped up; I
don't think we bugged them all that much, so having the outgoing people stay
around for a bit on the portmgr list may be a good policy to have as well.

> 
> On Oct 9, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> 
> >It might be a good idea to agree on a term and then also stage
> >things so that we don't end up with the possibility of 100%
> >turnover each election.
> >
> >On Oct 9, 2009, at 3:39 PM, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
> >>Also, are we sticking to the same number of people?

Good question; we went from three in the past to the current four, which
mostly happened due to the four of us being chosen pretty quickly with the
changeover.  The only disadvantage to an even number is the possibility of a
stalemate, though fortunately we haven't seen that.

Is there any need for more people, fewer, or is four good?  From my point
of view, I'd say more is nice to a point since that many more people to
respond to various issues, but going too big could risk
design-by-committee issues...

Bryan


[...]
> >--
> >Daniel J. Luke
> >+========================================================+
> >| *---------------- dluke at geeklair.net ----------------* |
> >| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |
> >+========================================================+
> >|   Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily   |
> >|          reflect the opinions of my employer.          |
> >+========================================================+