Re: Alternative proposal: focus on term limits rather than turnover
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 08:54:31AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > I would suggest introducing a transitional clause that would state
> > > something like:
> > >
> > > As a transitional measure, the terms of all current members that
> > > exceed 4 years will only expire every 6 months, in order of
> > > seniority.
> > >
> > > This would need some refining, but I hope you get the point.
> >
> > Seems reasonable, yes. I think that having the simplest possible
> > functional expression of term limits seems like a feature, with a
> > transitional measure *solely* to stage the turnover of the *current* TC
> > over time (and thus set up for future staged term expiry as well). That
> > makes more sense to me than baking in a "2 members" or "2-R members"
> > rule going forward.
>
> Well, even if you bootstrap correctly, the TC members are free to resign
> before their term and you can't ensure that the turnover rate will remain
> constant.
That's precisely the point of my proposal: I'm not attempting to ensure
that the turnover rate will remain constant. As the subject line
suggests, this proposal simply establishes a term limit, which
guarantees a certain minimum rate of turnover. The turnover rate may
exceed that minimum if people resign. (It might do so with the '2'
proposal as well, as long as the committee size remains over the
minimum.)
I actually wonder if the various families of '2' proposals might work as
a second clause added to a common term limit clause like this one.
First state the term limits to establish a minimum rate of turnover,
then define a maximum number of expirations applied per unit time.
Common language on the term limits seems like a feature here, and I'd be
happy to work towards that.
> What happens if we have a GR that contradicts a TC decision and that half
> the TC resigns because they no longer feel empowered to take more
> decisions? You're back to your initial situation and we will have regular
> large batches of changes.
That case seems neither likely nor particularly problematic (from a term
expiry point of view, I mean; from a project point of view it'd be a
sign of something awful going on). We could choose to appoint only a
couple of TC members at a time if we want to rate-limit things; we don't
*have* to have a full 8 members on the committee at all times. Or we
could appoint half the committee at once. I don't see it as terrible if
we replace half the committee every 4-5 years; we'd still have
significant continuity.
> I think that I prefer a rule where we target a regular turnover of the
> longest-serving members.
Fair enough. However, I'd still like to see the simple term-limits-only
proposal available as an option.
- Josh Triplett
Reply to: