Re: WRT Term limits, etc. [long]
robertor@typhoon.co.jp (Richard G. Roberto) wrote on 28.10.97 in <Pine.LNX.3.96.971028060627.2218C-100000@dedlegend.nwmarkets.co.jp>:
> On 27 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > What problems are term limits supposed to solve, exactly?
>
> I'm glad you asked. I've been involved in a number of
> volunteer organizations, many of which were organized not
> unlike debian (with political offices, elections, etc.)
> Volunteer organizations are just that -- organizations! It
> is there nature to function as an extension of their
> purpose, rather than an extension of any one individual.
I've been in some volunteer organizations, as well.
None of them had term limits.
Actually, none of them _needed_ term limits. The real problem was not
getting people to leave their jobs, it was getting people to actually
volunteer for those jobs.
> Term limits force the organization to structure itself to be
> less beurocratic than it could otherwise afford to be. It
Huh?! How does adding bureaucracy lead to less bureaucracy?
> also empowers the "system" or "process" by which the
> organization runs, rather than empowering a person or
> political post. It is the unique nature of volunteer
> organizations that makes them uniquely suited for term
> limits on its offices.
This doesn't make any sense to me at all.
In my experience, if you want such an organization to run better, you
change people _less_ often, not _more_ often.
And as the nature of volunteer organizations, in my experience, is one of
not finding candidates for jobs, I'd say they are completely unsuited for
term limits.
> Suppose Bruce (or his successor) becomes so identified with
> the project, that the leader figure overshadows or even
> redefines the project from the perspective of the masses.
That's hard to believe. We're not the FSF. (Of course, in that case, RMS
_made_ the FSF, so one might say this state of affairs is actually good.
Personally, I've said that RMS is the FSF's biggest PR problem. And that
was before I met him in Aachen; I have some weird memories from that - RMS
walking around clutching his bags as if he was afraid people were going to
steal them, for example.)
> Suddenly, the leader figure is associated with a politically
> incorrect cupcake manufacturer that uses only partially
> recycled cupcake paper. Now, the news all over Berkley has
> people creating legislation to bann the use of Debian
> software, since the leader figure is sooo politically
> incorrect! ;) (small dig at Berkley-ites -- no offense)
That's even harder to believe. On the other hand, would anybody - I'm
tempted to say "in the real world" - really notice?
> As for "losing good talent", I think that's being silly.
I think it's a real problem.
> The incumbents don't need to go away just becuase they're no
> longer in a political position of power. Of course, if they
As far as their job is concerned, they _are_ going away. As filling that
job is usually a nontrivial problem, this cannot possibly be good per se.
> choose to, the organization is likely better off without
> them in any case. Please also keep in mind that people with
> good technical skills are not always (or perhaps I should
> say are seldom) skilled politically, or organizationally.
That's exactly the problem here. Once we find some, we don't want term
limits to keep them from doing those jobs.
> If a volunteer organization is so dependant on any one
> individual that something like term limits are not feasable,
> then I think the organization needs reorganizing. I don't
You can do that with a commercial organization. You often can't with
volunteer organizations.
> Please try to evaluate the proposal on its own merits. It
I did, above. I don't see any merits. Sorry.
MfG Kai
Reply to: