On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:46:36PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> 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?
Hmm. You mentioned "nomination period" above, but that term isn't
defined anywhere. If it was, I might suggest something like:
* In order to make up for lost manpower, infrastructure teams that
have recently lost two or more members to latency or retirement are
encouraged to add at least one new member during the next nomination
period.
I'm not sure how to phrase that without using "nomination period", but
I'd like to. Maybe something like this:
* In order to make up for lost manpower, infrastructure teams that
have recently lost two or more members to latency or retirement are
encouraged to add at least one new member as soon as qualified
candidates become available.
noah
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature