[Development] New Chief Maintainer

[Lars Knoll]

Hi everybody,

Sorry for being a bit slow to answer, the last days were a bit hectic for me :)

As I’m for the moment still the Chief Maintainer, I guess it’s also my responsibility to get the nomination and voting process organised.

I do agree that we will need a full vote of all maintainers, especially if we have more than one candidate.

So here’s how I propose to handle this:

* We have a nomination period that I’d like to extend until the 1st of June (before end of the day in CEST). That gives you all 2 weeks since my announcement to nominate candidates. Nominees have to state that they’d be willing to take on the responsibility before that deadline.
* On Thursday, 2nd of June we will start the voting process using the infrastructure we have created last year. Voting will be anonymous. Voting will be open for 2 weeks and close on the 15th of June (23:59 CEST). As per our QUIP, all maintainers in the Qt Project are allowed a vote.

I hope everybody can agree with this process.

Cheers,
Lars


> On 20 May 2022, at 09:03, Paul Wicking <Paul.Wicking at qt.io> wrote:
> 
> Thank you for your invaluable contribution in the role as Chief Maintainer over the years, Lars!
> 
> Regarding the way forward; I agree with André Somers that lazy consensus will not do, the QUIP explicitly requires a vote. I also agree that objecting to a candidate shouldn't require one to also nominate someone else. However, I consider that rather a moot point; the maintainers are to organize a vote, and the QUIP offers no guidelines or instructions in whom can be nominated, that all nominees must be pre-approved, or anything like that. As such, I believe the maintainers can nominate whomever they see fit for the role and then cast their votes accordingly.
> 
> However, I'm not sure I agree with André that the winning candidate requires 50% of the votes, as it is not clear to me what the intention of the QUIP authors was when they used the phrase "simple majority". A simple majority can (and certainly often do) mean relative majority in electoral systems. However, I believe the QUIP offers some leeway for the maintainers to decide on this, as it clearly states they are to arrange a vote. Bikeshedding opportunities galore :)
> 
> In any case, I see one nomination in this thread, of Volker, who accepts the nomination as an honor, and that nomination has even been seconded by another maintainer. There's also a proposed deadline for coming up with further nominations (25th May). So to me, it looks like the maintainers are doing what they are expected to do in accordance with the QUIP.
> 
> Finally, I understand the QUIP such that the vote on the new Chief Maintainer is to be arranged by and voted on by Maintainers only. As such, please consider this the attempt of one approver to offer some guidance for the select group of Maintainers. I would like to congratulate Volker, as well as any possible future nominees, on the nomination for the role. I trust the maintainers will elect a person that will act as a unifying figure within the community in the role of Chief Maintainer.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Paul
> 
> Disclaimer: though employed by The Qt Company, this email is solely in the capacity of being an inividual contributor to the Qt Project and reflects my personal perspective only.
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Development <development-bounces at qt-project.org> on behalf of André Somers <andre at familiesomers.nl>
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2022 05:43
> To: Volker Hilsheimer; development at qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] New Chief Maintainer
> 
> Hi Volker,
> 
> On 19-05-2022 22:42, Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
>>> On 18 May 2022, at 11:23, André Somers <andre at familiesomers.nl> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 18-05-2022 11:19, André Somers wrote:
>>>> As I understand it [1], this needs a formal vote. However, the QUIP
>>>> does not specify a full procedure. I would suggest:
>>> And then I forget the actual link:
>>> 
>>> https://quips-qt-io.herokuapp.com/quip-0002.html#how-to-become-chief-maintainer
>> 
>> Thanks André.
>> 
>> The QUIP asks for a simple-majority vote of all Maintainers. Either way, let’s see what other nominations we get.
>> 
>> May I propose that until end of Wednesday 25th, Maintainers can nominate other candidates (including themselves), and then we can have a vote amongst those candidates nominated (the simple majority is enough as per QUIP). The QUIP doesn’t explicitly require the candidate to be a Maintainer.
>> 
>> If we have only one candidate by end of Wednesday, then we can use lazy consensus, i.e. as long as none of the maintainers object to the candidate, that candidate becomes chief maintainer. Although I’d expect that whoever has an objection to one candidate also nominates another candidate.
> 
> The procedure outlined in the linked QUIP is substantially different
> from the procedure outlined for becoming a Maintainer. The wording to me
> suggest we need an actual vote in this case, not a lazy consensus. The
> "simple majority" refers to the needed number of votes out of the quorum
> (simple majority meaning >50%), not the simplicity of the voting
> procedure IMO.
> 
> So no, I don't think a lazy consensus will do. And no, I don't think
> it's having an objection to a candidate means that you also know a good
> other candidate willing to take up the baton instead.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> André
> 
> 
>> 
>> Volker
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development