Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members
Andreas Henriksson <andreas@fatal.se> writes:
> This last part is key in summarising how I interpret your reasoning:
> - There is a consensus for the basic principle of tech-ctte membership
> rotation.
> - We (for some value of we) do not trust future members of tech-ctte to
> always follow this principle.
As a TC member, I would like there to be some structure to the job,
because there's never a good time to step down, there's always something
in progress, etc. If there is a schedule that everyone has agreed to,
then it's reliable and predictable and straightforward.
If we don't end up getting that into the constitution, I will set a
schedule for my own involvement in the TC independently. But I think we
will, institutionally, benefit from having there be a commonly-agreed-on
schedule that we all use, including people who are considering joining.
> - We (FSVO we) do not trust future members of tech-ctte to formalise the
> basic principle.
I really don't think it's a matter of trust so much that some things do
work better with a process agreed-on in advance, even when everyone has
the same goals and same desires.
The TC could indeed go off and come up with a process on its own, but why
not involve the project as a whole? Other people have had really good
ideas about what that project would look like.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: