Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Lucas" == Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@debian.org> writes:


    Lucas> (Elaborating on the context a bit given the discussion spread
    Lucas> over some time -- two options have been proposed: - expire
    Lucas> the 2 most senior members - expire the 2-R most senior
    Lucas> members, with R the number of resignations over the last 12
    Lucas> months)

    Lucas> What we want to encourage is, I think, a sane and healthy
    Lucas> turnover in the TC. Ideally, this would happen automatically:
    Lucas> members would just resign when they feel that bringing fresh
    Lucas> manpower is profitable to the TC overall. However, there's a
    Lucas> number of social reasons why this doesn't work so well.
    Lucas> which might weaken the TC a bit too much.  With the '2-R'
    Lucas> schema, I have an additional incentive to resign: if I
    Lucas> resign, I 'save' someone else more senior than me from
    Lucas> getting expired.  (And given I'm not so active anymore,
    Lucas> instead of weakening the TC further, my resignation might
    Lucas> even reinforce the TC).


    Lucas> The '2-R' schema could even result in an internal TC
    Lucas> discussion: "OK, the Project wants us to change two
    Lucas> members. Are there people that feel like resigning now? Or
    Lucas> should we just fallback to the default of expiring the two
    Lucas> most senior members?"  I think that if this happened, it
    Lucas> would be very healthy for the TC.

I think such discussions would be good.

I don't think this conflicts with what  I said about term limits earlier
this morning.
While I do think that 4-5 years is a good term length, I do think a lot
of churn can be bad, and 2-r makes a lot of sense to me for the reason
you give above.


--Sam