On 19/11/14 at 19:13 +0000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Russ's reaction to this was that it would be very hard not to > automatically reappoint a current member: > > The social pressures here don't work very well. In general, any > approach that has the existing committee decide whether to retain > a member who's already on the committee has the potential for hard > feelings, creating future difficulties working together, and so forth. > This is why I favor some system that requires a pause; that way, no > one is put in the position of having to refuse to reappoint someone > that they've worked with for the last eight years. > > -- https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/msg00081.html > > I found that pretty persuasive personally.
OK, point taken. So either we find a way to re-appoint a current member that avoids that social pressure (but that would likely require changing the appointment procedure entirely), or we drop the idea of not having a mandatory vacation between two appointments. (which sounds more likely) Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141119211836.gb28...@xanadu.blop.info
