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

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:41:28PM +0000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> "Text marked as a citation, such as this, is rationale and does not form
> part of the constitution. It may be used only to aid interpretation in
> cases of doubt." -- from appendix B in the constitution.

OK, I didn't remember that (documented) convention. No objection then.

> Take the current members, Ian, Bdale, Steve, Andi, Russ and Don are all
> over five years and are in roughly that order of seniority iirc. On Jan 1st
> 2015, assuming no resignations, then:
> ie, I guess I was thinking that were all considered simultaneously so
> ordering wasn't relevant.

In fact, I don't mind simultaneity, I just wanted to be sure it wasn't
something that had been overlooked. I do observe that simultaneity might
result in more expiries than in scenarios in which you either define a
specific ordering, or members that would have been in the expiration set
voluntarily step down before January 1st.

> Oh, hey, since there's already math in the constitution, maybe it would
> work to say something like:
>  Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically reviewed on
>  the 1st of January of each year. At this time, the terms of the N
>  most senior members automatically expire provided they were appointed
>  at least 4.5 years ago. N is defined as 2-R (if R < 2) or 0 (if R >=
>  2). R is the number of former members of the Technical Committee who
>  have resigned, or been removed or replaced within the previous twelve
>  months.
>  A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior than
>  another if they were appointed earlier, or were appointed at the same
>  time and have been a member of the Debian project longer. In the event
>  that a member has been appointed more than once, only the most recent
>  appointment is relevant.
> ? 
> It's getting closer to source code than English at that point, but...

In fact, I found the above mathematical formulation quite nice, and
clearer than the English wording. But it might be just me. Others?

> (I'm not sure the second paragraph there is actually needed; could
> probably just rely on the secretary or the ctte itself to interpret
> "seniority" and disambiguate "appointment" sensibly.)

Better safe than sorry, I'd rather keep it in.  Even if it were only to
spare the Project a couple of threads on "hey, but what does it
*actually* mean to be ``more senior''", it would be worth it :-)

Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader  . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: