<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Mark McLoughlin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:markmc@redhat.com" target="_blank">markmc@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Anita,<br>
<br>
On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 15:50 -0500, Anita Kuno wrote:<br>
> Currently some of the language found in the TC charter does not yet<br>
> reflect gender parity[0].<br>
><br>
> I encountered this myself while officiating the TC election,<br>
> particularly the section on Candidates for PTL seats[1].<br>
><br>
> I move that the language of the TC charter reflect gender parity.<br>
><br>
><br>
> [0] <a href="https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/TechnicalCommittee</a><br>
> [1]Candidates for PTL seats<br>
> Any APC can propose his candidacy for the corresponding program PTL<br>
> election. Sitting PTLs are eligible to run for re-election each cycle,<br>
> provided they continue to meet the criteria.<br>
<br>
I think it goes without saying that it makes sense to fix this.<br>
Personally, I'm annoyed I didn't notice this before now.<br>
<br>
Care to suggest alternate wording and submit it as a patch to our<br>
governance repo?<br>
<br>
This is the canonical TC charter document:<br>
<br>
  <a href="https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/charter" target="_blank">https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/reference/charter</a><br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Mark.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-TC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-TC@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-TC@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>Agreed, surprising that none of us picked up on that in the past.  Should be fixed up for sure.</div></div>