[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard G. Roberto) wrote on 28.10.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 27 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > What problems are term limits supposed to solve, exactly? > > I'm glad you asked. I've been involved in a number of > volunteer organizations, many of which were organized not > unlike debian (with political offices, elections, etc.) > Volunteer organizations are just that -- organizations! It > is there nature to function as an extension of their > purpose, rather than an extension of any one individual. I've been in some volunteer organizations, as well. None of them had term limits. Actually, none of them _needed_ term limits. The real problem was not getting people to leave their jobs, it was getting people to actually volunteer for those jobs. > Term limits force the organization to structure itself to be > less beurocratic than it could otherwise afford to be. It Huh?! How does adding bureaucracy lead to less bureaucracy? > also empowers the "system" or "process" by which the > organization runs, rather than empowering a person or > political post. It is the unique nature of volunteer > organizations that makes them uniquely suited for term > limits on its offices. This doesn't make any sense to me at all. In my experience, if you want such an organization to run better, you change people _less_ often, not _more_ often. And as the nature of volunteer organizations, in my experience, is one of not finding candidates for jobs, I'd say they are completely unsuited for term limits. > Suppose Bruce (or his successor) becomes so identified with > the project, that the leader figure overshadows or even > redefines the project from the perspective of the masses. That's hard to believe. We're not the FSF. (Of course, in that case, RMS _made_ the FSF, so one might say this state of affairs is actually good. Personally, I've said that RMS is the FSF's biggest PR problem. And that was before I met him in Aachen; I have some weird memories from that - RMS walking around clutching his bags as if he was afraid people were going to steal them, for example.) > Suddenly, the leader figure is associated with a politically > incorrect cupcake manufacturer that uses only partially > recycled cupcake paper. Now, the news all over Berkley has > people creating legislation to bann the use of Debian > software, since the leader figure is sooo politically > incorrect! ;) (small dig at Berkley-ites -- no offense) That's even harder to believe. On the other hand, would anybody - I'm tempted to say "in the real world" - really notice? > As for "losing good talent", I think that's being silly. I think it's a real problem. > The incumbents don't need to go away just becuase they're no > longer in a political position of power. Of course, if they As far as their job is concerned, they _are_ going away. As filling that job is usually a nontrivial problem, this cannot possibly be good per se. > choose to, the organization is likely better off without > them in any case. Please also keep in mind that people with > good technical skills are not always (or perhaps I should > say are seldom) skilled politically, or organizationally. That's exactly the problem here. Once we find some, we don't want term limits to keep them from doing those jobs. > If a volunteer organization is so dependant on any one > individual that something like term limits are not feasable, > then I think the organization needs reorganizing. I don't You can do that with a commercial organization. You often can't with volunteer organizations. > Please try to evaluate the proposal on its own merits. It I did, above. I don't see any merits. Sorry. MfG Kai
