Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:34:13AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I've briefly discussed this off list with Sam Hartman, who proposed a
> sensible rationale (although not necessarily the same Antony had in
> mind). The rationale is avoiding suddenly under staffing the ctte too
> much, making it non functional.
Personally, I'm not terribly worried about the size of the ctte; I don't
think having just a couple of active members would be much less effective
than havin eight active members. (Though having only a couple of members
might significantly lower the odds of having any /active/ members)
> I understand the concern, but I think it could be addressed better. For
> instance, one could say that expiries of "young" members inhibit the
> expiry of an "old" member only if the latter expiry would reduce the
> size of the ctte below 4 members (which is some sort of minimally viable
> threshold for a function ctte, according to Constitution ?6.2.1). In all
> other situations, "old" member expiries proceed unaffected by how many
> other members of the ctte stepped down in the previous year.
That sounds plausible; I'm not convinced it's a problem worth solving
though. The downside of solving it is that it makes things more
complicated, and potentially introduces annoying loopholes or bad
incentives.
The only bad incentive I see off hand is that if there were only four
members then the oldest members would be discouraged from appointing new
members, because that could force them to expire and otherwise they could
stay on indefinitely. But that's counterbalanced by the clause letting the
DPL appoint two new ctte members without even having to consult the ctte.
But if the DPL's going to exercise that power anyway, why have any
exception at all for resignations? Just have the two oldest members
expire each year, provided they've served at least four years?
*oldest = longest serving
Cheers,
aj
Reply to: