On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 01:20:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > This is true only if you use the number of members as the measure for > the "strength" of the TC. But if instead, you consider the sum of the > experience of all members, more turnover due to resignations at a given > point will have a greater impact.
I guess we have different notions of "experience" in mind here. It seems to me that the one you are using is "how long you have been serving on the CTTE", right? If it is so, and given that you consider re-appointments unlikely, I understand that from your POV the overall experience of the CTTE will suffer if this proposal were to pass. (As mentioned in a separate mail, I don't think it is that unlikely for CTTE members to be re-appointed after "vacation", so my perception of loss is lower, but I'll ignore that for now.) I think that the experience we should looking for in CTTE members should be pre-existing, in project areas like dealing with pesky technical issues (possibly at the intersection of many inter-connected packages), and in being able to manage standardization-like processes from discussion to synthesis. I expect this experience to be formed mostly outside the CTTE, in large packaging teams and/or working as interface between packaging teams and/or in the policy team. The only other kind of interesting additional experience that is CTTE specific is conflict arbitration. It is certainly very important for the job, but I don't think it is enough, alone, to justify longer terms. (You probably disagree :-)) Also, it is something that IMHO members would have to learn elsewhere anyhow (due to their personal life experiences, previous jobs, professional training, etc). > long as they are able to do their job with the level of quality required > by the role. So, yes, I think that the replacement of inactive, > demotivated or no longer suited members is much more important than to > the replacement of the more senior members. [...] > Note that I agree that turn-over is good. > > I also generally agree that remaining in charge too long is bad. However: > - I think that what is "too long" might depend on individual factors > - I don't think that 4 years is a reasonable value for "too long". We can certainly discuss on your second point, and possibly have different values for N on the ballot. That's easy. But your first point is essentially delegating to case-by-case decisions what to do, which is by definition not something you can obtain with a strict rule. I.e., it seems to me that your first point calls in to question whether we should have a strict rule in the first place. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
