Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:37:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >>> If we want the opportunity to appoint new members regularly, rather
> >>> than expire old members per se, we could just say that: "on July 1st,
> >>> the two longest serving ctte members' term expires" to end up with (on
> >>> average) four year terms... [...]
> Yeah, that would achieve the same goals I had in mind and might be a
> better idea.
Okay, let's see where that goes...
> I don't know if it makes sense to have two people's terms expire at the
> same time or to have one person expire every six months.
Or, in general, n people's terms expire every 6n months. You could have
3 people every 18 months, or 4 people every 2 years too.
> We could combine both features, though: set a term length of two years,
> and then say that people can serve for two terms in succession but then
> have to leave the committee for at least one term.
Two year terms would be electing (up to) four people a year. That seems
a lot? Eg, assuming two year term, and one year ineligible after two
consecutive terms, that'd be:
2014: Alice, Bob re-elected; Carol, Dave newly-elected
2015: Emma, Fred re-elected; Greta, Henry newly-elected
2016: Carol, Dave re-elected; Ivy, Jason newly-elected
(Alice, Bob ineligible)
2017: Greta, Henry re-elected; Karen, Larry newly-elected
(Emma, Fred ineligible)
2018: Ivy, Jason re-elected; Miley, Nathan newly-elected
(Carol, Dave ineligible)
...
Given only four tech ctte members have been on the ctte less than
essentially four years (Klee, who was an original member; myself, who
chose to not stay longer than 3 years; and Keith and Colin who are
both still serving), it seems to me like four years is a reasonable
lower-bound.
For the sake of something concrete to improve upon, how about, ummm...
- The committee's membership will be reviewed annually on August 16th.
- At that point, if there have not been at least two members leave
the committee in the past 12 months, the most senior committee member's
term expires immediately.
- In addition, if there are more than five members in the committee, and
no members have left the committee in the the past 12 months, the
second most senior committee member's term also expires immediately.
- A member's seniority is determined by the date of their most recent
appointment to the committee. In the case of multiple members appointed
to the committee on the same day, ties are broken based on their
debian.org uid (lower uid, more senior).
August 16th, because that's Debian's birthday, and choosing an arbitrary
date seemed to make it easier to deal with. Having it be a continuously
rolling 12 months could be a good idea if it can be worded reasonably?
Also possible would be just having the most senior ctte member's term
expire on Aug 16th unconditionally.
To make it two year terms, make the four most senior people's terms expire
each year.
To make it six year terms, you'd probably have to go with a rolling 18
month period.
There's nothing in the above preventing a member from being immediately
reappointed once their term expires, if the remaining committee vote
and the DPL agrees. However...
Possible candidacy rules:
- A developer is not eligible to rejoin the committee if they have
been a member of the committee within the preceeding twelve months.
(One term, then a break)
- A developer is not eligible to rejoin the committee if they have
been a member for more than four of the past five years.
(Max two consecutive terms, roughly)
- A developer is not eligible to rejoin the committee unless another
appointment has been made since they were most recenty a member.
(No term limit per se, but continually enforce some new blood)
- When considering candidates for inclusion in the committee, the ballot
must include at least one candidate who has not been a member of the
committee in the previous four years.
(Enforce considering new members, not necessarily having them)
- Any eligible developer nominated by the DPL or by at least two
developers in the period between August 1st and August 16th will be
considered for appointment to the committee, and be included on the
next ballot. Any developer so nominated may, however, withdraw their
nomination if they so choose.
(Enforce more meaningful consideration of new members, and provide a
nomination mechanism)
(This would work well with always expiring the most senior member's
term, because then there would be a guaranteed vacancy to fill after
August 16th, so nominations would always be relevant; even if none might
actually end up being appointed)
I've got a weak preference for the later options that don't set hard
term limits, personally.
Cheers,
aj
Reply to: