Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
Hi zack@,
Thanks for pushing this subject forward, it's a constitutional change I
would likely second.
Le mardi, 18 novembre 2014, 14.15:25 Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> > "provided /they/ were appointed" reads to me like it might mean that
> > if only one of them was appointed that long ago, maybe neither of
> > them expire. I'm not sure I can think of anything better; maybe
> > something like "At this time, the terms of members who were
> > appointed at least 54 months ago automatically expire. Expiry
> > occurs in order of seniority, and is limited to at most the two
> > most senior members." would be better? But I'm not sure this is
> > worth fixing.
>
> This is still pending, and noted in BUGS. I agree this is as a
> potential problem, at least if you look at it from a paranoid angle.
> I find your suggested wording not immediate, though, and I wonder if
> a/ someone else has better suggestion, and b/ whether this is worth
> fixing.
What about something along the lines of "At this time, the terms of
members who have been members for more than 54 months automatically
expire." ?
Another point though:
> 5. A Developer is not eligible to be (re)appointed to the Technical
> Committee if they have been a member within the previous 12 months.
Provided that the expiration happens on January first, does this imply
that if A was expired on 01.01.2015, she becomes eligible again on
01.01.2016? As I read the two new clauses, given someone the project
really wants on the TC, she can stay 5 years, break for a year and be
re-appointed, right?
All-in-all, I feel the change goes in the right direction, but I also
feel it only goes halfway through (probably the half we can collectively
agree on though). The two issues I'd like to see fixed on a longer term
are "quite long mandates" (although the fix helps here) and "imperfect
representativity of the diversity of the project caused by self-
appointment", which I'd like to get fixed through some sort of election
through the project. Sorry, I digressed; let's keep that for a later
discussion.
Cheers,
OdyX
Reply to: