Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 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
I already did the refs for these in May:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/msg00054.html
Ian was a founding member of the ctte in 1998, not '99; so with his
resignation today combined with the constitution passing on 23 Nov 1998,
he served three days short of 16 years by my count.
> So the average time spent in the TC is 7.8 years. (8.9 years without
> Russ and Colin)
That's only true of the current members, I went through the past members in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/msg00077.html
Basically about 5 or 6 years average when you include them.
> 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.
I think that depends on how many good candidates the project can find
for tech ctte members. If there's just, say, 10 people, I can easily
imagine people re-volunteering a year after to keep the ctte filled. If
there's 20 or more (which I expect is the case), I'd expect you're right,
and that, having been on the ctte for 5 years, people would take the
opportunity for a longer break than 12 months.
None of that's a value judgement though, and at least I, personally, don't
think/intend that the proposed change should be interpreted that way.
> So this proposal is likely to significantly reduce the average 'age' of
> TC members, to ~2 or 3 years.
In one sense, that's trivially true: if the max age is 5.5 years
(appointment on Jul 2nd, hitting 4.49 years on Jan 1st, then expiring
at 5.49 years next Jan 1st), no one resigns ever, and you somehow get
an even distribution of member ages, that would look something like:
8 months x 2
25 months x 2
41 months x 2
58 months x 2
which averages to about 33 months (2 years 9 months) average age. That's
despite an average length of service of between 4.5 and 5.5 years since
by assumption, no one ever resigns. I think the length of service is more
important than the average age, personally.
> 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).
First, even if that's true, you don't have to have been on the ctte to
have seen its decisions or mistakes -- it's constitutionally required
to operate in the open, so *anyone* (DD or not) can follow its decision
making processes, either in real time, or by looking through the archives.
Further, past-committee members can always be sought out for advice
and more insight into previous decisions if that's needed/desired --
they don't have to retain seats on the ctte for their memories to be
used in decisions.
Second, I'm not sure that is true -- assuming a mistake was made in
the past, whoever made it is is more likely to defend it, repeat it,
or simiply not want to admit it, than someone who wasn't involved and
can view the issue more objectively.
> I fear that, by reducing the average 'age' from 7.8 years to ~2 years,
I think you'd be better off focussing on max(age) than average here
-- even if the only way of getting info on past decisions was to have
someone who was there on the committee, you only need one person, not
half of them to have been around that long.
A max age of 2 years would be pretty unsustainable IMO, but I don't think
it's terribly realistic either (and could be worked around by ex-members
getting reappointed after 12 months off anyway).
> 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...
Russ's reaction to this was that it would be very hard not to
automatically reappoint a current member:
The social pressures here don't work very well. In general, any
approach that has the existing committee decide whether to retain
a member who's already on the committee has the potential for hard
feelings, creating future difficulties working together, and so forth.
This is why I favor some system that requires a pause; that way, no
one is put in the position of having to refuse to reappoint someone
that they've worked with for the last eight years.
-- https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/msg00081.html
I found that pretty persuasive personally.
Cheers,
aj
Reply to: