On 18 November 2014 20:33, Stefano Zacchiroli <z...@debian.org> wrote:
> Here is a draft GR text which builds on Anthony's work and implements > some of the aspects discussed in this thread. See below for > comments/rationales and the attachment for a wdiff. > Looks good to me. > + 3. At each review round expiries are processed sequentially, most > + senior member first. > + 4. No expiry can reduce the size of the Technical Committee to > + 3 members or fewer. (It might thus happen that up to 4 > members of > + the Technical Committee remain in charge with more than 54 > months > + of seniority on January 1st. In that case, up to 2 of them > will > + expire at the next review round, provided that the committee > has > + been further staffed.) > I guess I'd still be inclined to drop both of those; I don't see much difference between (letting the membership drop to 5 or 4 at which point DPL can increase it without the ctte's cooperation) and (letting the membership drop to 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 or 0 at which point the DPL can increase it without the ctte's cooperation), and making it another two paragraphs simpler would be a win. Wording simplifications and fixes for my en_IT idiosyncrasies are > particularly welcome. > Hmm. Wording seemed fine to me. Suggestions anyway: "not eligible to be (re)appointed" perhaps? "provided /they/ were appointed" reads to me like it might mean that if only one of them was appointed that long ago, maybe neither of them expire. I'm not sure I can think of anything better; maybe something like "At this time, the terms of members who were appointed at least 54 months ago automatically expire. Expiry occurs in order of seniority, and is limited to at most the two most senior members." would be better? But I'm not sure this is worth fixing. Maybe "(It might thus happen that at the start of January 1st the Technical Committee is composed of just 4 members, all of whom were appointed more than 54 months ago. If so, no one's term will expire. However if additional members are appointed in the next year, then the 2 most senior members' terms will expire at the next review round.)" would be better? I'm not sure if this needs explaining though? I wonder if "four and a half years (54 months)" would be better. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <a...@erisian.com.au>
