Hi, First, some data. The 'age' of each member of the TC (not excluding Russ and Colin) is: aba 2005-12-27 <8764pbxd9k.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>, 8.9y bdale 2001-04-17 <20010417195420.I5495@visi.net>, ~13.6y cjwatson 2011-08-24 <20110824160257.GA30672@upsilon.cc>, 3.2y don 2009-01-11 <87zlhx3c2s.fsf@rover.gag.com>, 5.8y iwj at some point in 1999; ~15.3y rra 2009-01-11 <87zlhx3c2s.fsf@rover.gag.com>, 5.8y vorlon 2005-12-27 <8764pbxd9k.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>, 8.9y keithp 2013-11-29 <20131129161152.GA9909@xanadu.blop.info>, 0.9y So the average time spent in the TC is 7.8 years. (8.9 years without Russ and Colin) On 18/11/14 at 21:49 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > + 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. Even if the possibility is open, I doubt that many expired TC members will actually re-apply the year after their expiration. The message sent by the project is quite clear: they should probably do something else. So this proposal is likely to significantly reduce the average 'age' of TC members, to ~2 or 3 years. I totally see the point in preventing the ossification of the TC. Clearly, it is a good thing if many TC members are involved in day-to-day Debian activities outside of the TC, and even preferably in day-to-day *core* Debian activities (core team membership, maintenance of important packages, etc). It's useful to feel what it's like to maintain packages etc, to fully understand the impact of their decisions. I don't think that we want a TC that is an "advisory board", where, for all members, being in the TC is the only thing they do in Debian. On the other hand, the TC is the kind of committee where it's useful to have members with quite a lot of memory about past decisions (and possibly, mistakes). There's not so much activity (well, in general), so experience builds up slowly. Also, even if there's a correlation in general between age and ossification, we could have older members that manage to stay young, active, and generally useful to the TC. I fear that, by reducing the average 'age' from 7.8 years to ~2 years, we are going too far. I would like to make it easier, for some members, to stay members of the TC for longer than 4 years. OTOH, I don't want this decision to be taken lightly. I'm not sure of how to achieve that. We could just drop the mandatory vacation clause, and have expired TC members go through the same process as prospective new members (nomination, etc.). The TC and the DPL would then have to consider whether it's better to re-appoint an old member, or to replace him/her with a new one. But maybe that's not enough to ensure the suitable rate of change... What do you think? Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature