Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:59:31 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> said:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:33:28PM +0000, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> 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.
> Not sure if you've read it Sam, but just in case: I find Phil's
> example in <[🔎] 871toz16nz.fsf@hands.com> to be most convincing against
> the 2-R model in general. ...
I think someone had already mentioned this option, but one way to avoid
the effects of that issue, for those who want to avoid always expiring 2
members, is to expire 2-S members, where S is the number of members who
have resigned since the last review period, and who would have been
expired at the current review period if they had not resigned. So the
resignation of a junior member would not affect the expiry process, but
the resignation of a senior member would mean that we would have one
less expiry.
--
Hubert Chathi <uhoreg@debian.org> -- Jabber: hubert@uhoreg.ca
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA http://www.uhoreg.ca/
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Reply to: