Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Thursday, November 20, 2014 12:33:28 PM Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "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.
[responding here because it's the end of the thread right now, not sure where
better]
Given that we've just had significant turnover in th TC, might it not make
sense to have the first term expirations set for a year or two from now? That
would keep this discussion well separated from any current turmoil and I think
it's reasonably clear that we don't, at the moment, suffer from a lack of
turnover in the TC (which AIUI is the motivation for this).
Scott K
Reply to: