So, let's assume we'd adopted this proposal back in July or so. And then things happened as they did, and we got the same three resignations we did.
Perhaps we wouldn't have gotten those same three resignations. I actually argue that it is a feature to encourage the people who resigned to do so. All wanted to be gone; you don't want to encourage people to hang on past the time they are ready to go. It's basically always better to get on with the transition reasonably rapidly rather than hanging on another year or so. So, let's assume we did have the same three resignations. How would each of the proposals handle this? 1) 2 would expire two people at Jan 1, 2015, meaning the TC had only 3 experienced folks on it. 2) 2-r would expire no one new because we'd already had enough expirations. 3) 2-s I think would expire 1 person, because Ian was in s, right? 4) Anthony's new proposal would schedule the two most senior folks to expire at end of 2015, right? So you'd have up to 5 experienced folks through most of 2015. For myself I do not like the effects of option 1. I also believe that we should not treat the current situation as exceptional. This will not be the last time we have a tough issue before us that takes up a lot of emotional energy. It is strongly in the interest of TC members and the project for us to encourage people to find something that makes them happy when the TC no longer does. So, I recommend evaluating these mechanisms against future similar situations as an important evaluation criteria. -- 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/00000149d2445389-b0e7cfb5-a020-4c0a-a5cc-ee4db3083cf9-000...@email.amazonses.com
