Re: infrastructure team procedures (fifth edit)
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 03:41:43PM -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> One small typo fix. diff is attached.
Thanks. (And to Lucas.)
> And a question on the following text:
> * Each infrastructure team has to accept at least two valid candidates
> every two years.
> * Each infrastructure team has not added any new members according to
> the rule above, but has had to mark at least two members as latent
> in the same period, has to accept at least one new valid candidate.
> I don't understand the logic here. The first point states that teams
> must add two valid candidates in a given 2 year period. The second
> point assumes that a given team has not added new members as required
> previously, and has removed two inactive members. What is the point of
> the second rule? The first already states that two members should be
> added. If the intent is to state that a team that removes two inactive
> members must *immediately* add at least one new member to compensate,
> then perhaps that could be stated more clearly?
Stephen also asked me this, I guess I didn't fix it well enough :)
Firstly, the two rules aren't meant to be read as an AND relation, each
rule stands on its own.
The second rule is meant to address the situation where a team is losing
members to inactivity, but two years haven't passed yet (otherwise the first
rule would have been applicable) - such a team should accept one new valid
candidate in the next nomination period. This is far from immediate (it
doesn't force anybody's hand, it just nudges them, like the rest of the
proposal), but also much better than waiting two years for the first rule
to finally kick in.
Can you suggest an improved wording?
2. That which causes joy or happiness.