On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 03:43:38PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > The sooner the better IMHO. I find it very weird that tech-ctte members > apparently recognize the need but still want to be force-rotated rather > then voluntarily doing it. On the other hand, I guess you don't end > up in a committee unless you absolutely love procedural formalia and > want to see as much as possible of it. I find this explanation to be absolutely backward. There are good reasons for *not* wanting a maximum term limit to be just folklore. If it is something important (and I think it is), then it should really be carved in the stone of a foundation document. That way you avoid the risk of people trying to game the system and, more importantly, the social awkwardness of having to deal with that situation, no matter how unlikely that is to happen. As I've mentioned before: a Constitution is precisely the place where one wants to be paranoid. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that several tech-ctte members think that such a just rule is so important that it should really be carved in the Constitution, instead of wanting to have it that way just for the sake of formalities. Either way, I wouldn't put any motivation in their mouths without asking first. Cheers. -- 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