On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:59:31 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli <z...@debian.org> said:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:33:28PM +0000, Sam Hartman wrote: >> While I do think that 4-5 years is a good term length, I do think a >> lot of churn can be bad, and 2-r makes a lot of sense to me for the >> reason you give above. > Not sure if you've read it Sam, but just in case: I find Phil's > example in <871toz16nz....@hands.com> to be most convincing against > the 2-R model in general. ... I think someone had already mentioned this option, but one way to avoid the effects of that issue, for those who want to avoid always expiring 2 members, is to expire 2-S members, where S is the number of members who have resigned since the last review period, and who would have been expired at the current review period if they had not resigned. So the resignation of a junior member would not affect the expiry process, but the resignation of a senior member would mean that we would have one less expiry. -- Hubert Chathi <uho...@debian.org> -- Jabber: hub...@uhoreg.ca PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA http://www.uhoreg.ca/ Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA -- 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/874mttkatj....@desiato.home.uhoreg.ca
