[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members



On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 07:58:45PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm still skeptical that something built around people typically serving
> for eight years is the sort of turnover we want, but it's the conservative
> approach and doesn't change too much at once.  Which has some definite
> merits.

I'm not sure that two terms would necessarily be the normal case;
I suspect some of that is just that having to quit and appoint a new
member to the ctte is work and it's always easier to just let things be.

Having thought about it some more, I don't think "longest serving ctte
member's term ends on <date>, unconditionally" is a good rule. For one
thing, it means that on day-before-<date>, the longest serving ctte member
can resign and force the second longest serving ctte member's term to end
"prematurely".

I might have another go at seeing if I can word it for rolling twelve
months, to see if that's workable.

> > Possible candidacy rules:
> >  - 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)
> I think this is my preference.

Yeah, it seems plausible.

> >  - 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)
> The social pressures here don't work very well.  In general, any approach
> that has the existing committee decide whether to retain a member who's
> already on the committee has the potential for hard feelings, creating
> future difficulties working together, and so forth.  

Yeah, that's a fairly persuasive argument.

> >  - 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.
> I'm not sure there's any need to say something about this, 

Me either.

Cheers,
aj


Reply to: