Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:18:36PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 19/11/14 at 19:13 +0000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 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.
>
> OK, point taken.
> So either we find a way to re-appoint a current member that avoids that
> social pressure (but that would likely require changing the appointment
> procedure entirely), or we drop the idea of not having a mandatory
> vacation between two appointments. (which sounds more likely)
How about only accepting reappointment during the cooloff period if
a.) the committee is short more than one person
*AND*
b.) the nomination comes from the DPL?
That way, if the DPL observes that the TC clearly struggles to find a
new member he can nominate a "cooloff:ee", but the TC cannot do so
themselves.
PS: To preempt possible objections that this allows for the TC
to gamble the system by claiming that there are no viable candidates:
I fully trust the TC to be above such behaviour *AND* I also fully
trust the DPL to see through such a behaviour if it, against all odds,
would take place.
Kind regards, David
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/
Reply to: