On 20/11/14 at 13:04 -0500, Hubert Chathi wrote: > 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.
It was proposed by Anthony in <20141119220621.ga31...@master.debian.org>: > However, another option would be "2-R'" where only retirements of people > who would otherwise be candidates for expiry count. So Russ quitting > after serving 5.8 years would count, but Colin resigning after serving > "just" 3.2 years wouldn't. That doesn't seem like it's especially easy > to specify either though. Note that there are two subtle variants: - only resignations from people > 4.5y count in R' (Anthony's) - only resignations from people who would have been expired count in S (yours) 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/20141120191022.ga19...@xanadu.blop.info
