On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:25:10AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > That also eliminates any issues of relative seniority, since we > evaluate each member's term limit in isolation. It also eliminates > any transitional issues, both because we don't link the expiry to any > particular calendar date, and because by the time we pass this we'll > have enough developers on the committee whose terms will *not* > immediately expire that we won't have to appoint more in a rush. I wonder how you could be so sure about that. But even if that is the case, replacing the whole (or mostly of) the current CTTE with a freshly appointed one at the same time is very likely to induce the problem that after another full term period (4 years or whatever else the bikeshed says) from now you'll have another large wave of batch replacements. Yes, that could happen anyhow, but is much more likely to happen if you start enforcing a strict term limit abruptly to all members, instead of doing so gradually. So, while your proposal is appealing in the abstract for its simplicity, it is not really practical (in the current situation) without a relatively complex transitional measure that make its initial application gradual. > So, the complete diffstat of this proposal is +3-0, rather than +15-1. > :) Yes, but to achieve a similar effect you'll have a much larger diff to apply to the transitional measure, that you're trying to sweep under the carpet :-) Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature