[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Alternative proposal: focus on term limits rather than turnover

Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:25:10AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > This approach seems like it focuses too much on aggregate committee
> > turnover, rather than just setting a term limit.
> Term limits rather than turnover was what I proposed originally; the
> response to that was that people were concerned about it risking too
> much churn.
>  https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/msg00054.html
>  https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/msg00057.html
>  https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/msg00059.html

>From the second mail you linked:
> I like Russ' approach here too, assign a random term start so we don't
> suddenly have a large number of people being forced to resign and be
> reappointed.  Maybe just do it as a FIFO with a fixed distribution over
> whatever we end up as the term limit?

>From the third:
> - in this kind of "reform" discussions I find generally useful to
>   distinguish two aspects: 1) the ideal model we want to have, 2) how to
>   migrate from the current model to that. Entangling the two aspects
>   usually make the status quo win over everything else, just because
>   migration is hard.
>   For the migration in this specific case, random assigning start term
>   dates as suggested by Russ seems to be a brilliant idea.

Distinguishing those two aspects is precisely what I'm trying to do
here; the second proposal I sent incorporates a transition measure
inspired by Andrei's suggestion, which is effectively the FIFO suggested

- Josh Triplett

Reply to: