[ Cross post -vote, -project ; M-F-T: to -vote ]
Hi,
I am hereby formally submitting an alternative proposal, between
double-dashed lines below (formally it's an amendment, but I don't
expect Stefano to accept it, as we discussed it before). I am also
calling for seconds (see below).
===
The Constitution is amended as follows:
---
--- constitution.txt.orig 2014-11-17 18:02:53.314945907 +0100
+++ constitution.2-R.txt2014-11-24 10:24:42.109426386 +0100
@@ -299,8 +299,22 @@
Project Leader may appoint new member(s) until the number of
members reaches 6, at intervals of at least one week per
appointment.
-5. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may
+5. A Developer is not eligible to be (re)appointed to the Technical
+ Committee if they have been a member within the previous 12 months.
+6. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may
remove or replace an existing member of the Technical Committee.
+7. Term limit:
+ 1. On January 1st of each year the term of any Committee member
+who has served more than 54 months (4.5 years) and who is one
+of the N most senior members automatically expires. N is
+defined as 2-R (if R 2) or 0 (if R = 2). R is the number of
+former members of the Technical Committee who have resigned,
+or been removed or replaced within the previous 12 months.
+ 2. A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior
+than another if they were appointed earlier, or were appointed
+at the same time and have been a member of the Debian Project
+longer. In the event that a member has been appointed more
+than once, only the most recent appointment is relevant.
6.3. Procedure
---
===
Rationale
-
First, I think that there is wide agreement that a more regular
turn-over among TC members would be a good thing. And both Stefano's
and this proposal aim at addressing this, by ensuring that at least 2
members of the TC are replaced every year.
However, too much turn-over, with more than 2 replacements at one point
of time, might have negative effects too. The TC might be temporarily
weakened by having more young members; replacing more than two members
at one point will cause less replacements later; it increases the
difficulty of finding new members.
The recent situation, with three TC members resigning, should not be
treated as exceptional in the context of this resolution. If it were to
happen again, I don't think that we should add one or two automatic
expirations to the three resignations.
This proposal differs from the original proposal by counting all
resignations and removals as part of the desirable 2 per year
replacement rate, so that the total number of replacements does not
exceed two if only one or two younger members decide to resign.
This version of the proposal could even result in an internal TC
discussion: OK, the Project wants two members to be replaced. Are there
members that feel like resigning now? Or should we just fallback to the
default of expiring the two most senior members?. I think that such a
discussion would be a healthy way for each TC member to evaluate its
status. The orignal proposal could have the detrimental effect of
pushing inactive/demotivated members to stay on the TC until their
expiration, to avoid causing additional churn.
Note that there are a few examples to compare the behaviour of the 2-S
and 2-R proposals in 20141126142529.ga31...@xanadu.blop.info.
Calling for seconds
---
The DPL can propose general resolutions or GR amendments without seeking
seconds. I initially wanted to waive that right, to only have this
option on the ballot if there's sufficient interest from others, but the
Secretary declined (in 20141124232153.ga17...@roeckx.be). I am
therefore seeking seconds, and will withdraw this alternative proposal
if it does not reach the required number of seconds by December 10th.
Thanks
--
I would like to thank Stefano for organizing the discussion around this
GR, and preparing the various versions of the resolution and amendments.
Lucas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
