Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On 20/11/14 at 13:04 -0500, Hubert Chathi wrote:
> 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.
It was proposed by Anthony in <[🔎] 20141119220621.GA31739@master.debian.org>:
> However, another option would be "2-R'" where only retirements of people
> who would otherwise be candidates for expiry count. So Russ quitting
> after serving 5.8 years would count, but Colin resigning after serving
> "just" 3.2 years wouldn't. That doesn't seem like it's especially easy
> to specify either though.
Note that there are two subtle variants:
- only resignations from people > 4.5y count in R' (Anthony's)
- only resignations from people who would have been expired count in S
(yours)
Lucas
Reply to: