Stefano Zacchiroli <z...@debian.org> writes: ... >> The '2-R' schema could even result in an internal TC discussion: "OK, >> the Project wants us to change two members. Are there people that feel >> like resigning now? Or should we just fallback to the default of expiring >> the two most senior members?" >> I think that if this happened, it would be very healthy for the TC. > > I agree that this would most certainly happen. But my judgement on it is > that it would be a *bad* thing, not a good one. In fact, I would see > that as a tactical behavior on the part of the CTTE to work around an > agreed upon judgement on the fact that turn-over is good, and that > remaining in charge too long is bad.
Quite. This reminds me of a rule that for the EU's framework programs, where they must make sure that (IIRC) 30% new blood is brought into the review process every year to try to avoid cronyism. That sounds like a decent rule, in that it seems to imply that one replaces the reviewers every 4 years or so, but that's not what actually happens for various reasons. The actual outcome is that the same 60+% tend to do reviews year after year, with the 30% each year mostly replacing the 30% from the year before. Of course, with the TC it doesn't matter as much, because the TC is not allocating millions of Euros of funding. Even so, if someone wanted to stay in post on the TC for whatever reason, this '2-R' rule would just encourage them to be difficult to work with in the hope that a couple of less senior members became fed up enough to leave early. It doesn't seem wise to have such an incentive to behave badly. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
pgpZZ4VfOnu2O.pgp
Description: PGP signature
