Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members
Watching other volunteer organizations, I've found that having turnover somewhere between 3-5 years tends to work fairly well. I've seen this in student organizations where the turnover tends to be somewhat encouraged by graduation although in the cases I'm thinking of that did not force the issue. By 3 years someone is very good at what they do. However, they start to burn out and start to not notice or take advantage of good ideas. The burn out is becoming a significant issue by 5 years. I've seen the same thing in the IETF. There, two years is really just enough to learn some of the leadership roles and to get into the stride of things. Those roles are fairly intense. Four years tends to work quite well, but by 6 years (two year terms), people really do tend to be burned out. Even the best people are showing significant signs of being jaded and abrupt. They don't pursue things with the dedication they used to, they don't dedicate as much time to working with folks to understand all sides, consensus decisions seem to be more forced. Keep in mind that TC members can seek wizdom and institutional memory from outside the TC. There's nothing stopping a TC member next year from writing to Russ, Ian, collin, or even older TC members to get advice. The point should be to have people with good technical judgment and current willingness to come up with solutions that make the project stronger. That doesn't require a huge memory of being on the TC. --Sam -- 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/0149ccdf9746-1d35b433-b0a5-4589-9623-6de0a0a06bac-000...@email.amazonses.com
Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On 20/11/14 at 08:21 +, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 08:01:54AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > I don't think that the TC is a stress-full role. Obviously the recent > > > > past > > > > proved how the role can be incredibly stressful at times. But there has > > > > also been long periods without much activity, [...] > > FWIW, I agree with Steve here. The nature of the tech ctte is that it > only does things when there's some sort of significant enough problem > that can't be dealt with by other means, and that's pretty much always > going to be stressful. If the problem's not significant, no one cares > enough to take it to the ctte; if it's easy, it just gets dealt with. If > it's hard and important, dealing with it will be stressful... > > That said, the breaks without activity make it easier, certainly -- > I can't imagine someone lasting as DPL or release manager for 16 or 13 > or 9 years, for instance. I think that this is a (quite useless) discussion about the exact meaning of 'stress-full'. To be clear, I fully agree that the stress level of TC members has probably been super-high for the last 3 years or so. But I hope that this is just an anomaly, and that at some point it will return to being super-high only from time to time (when there are decisions to make), so that on average it isn't such a stress-full role. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 08:01:54AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > I don't think that the TC is a stress-full role. Obviously the recent past > > > proved how the role can be incredibly stressful at times. But there has > > > also been long periods without much activity, [...] FWIW, I agree with Steve here. The nature of the tech ctte is that it only does things when there's some sort of significant enough problem that can't be dealt with by other means, and that's pretty much always going to be stressful. If the problem's not significant, no one cares enough to take it to the ctte; if it's easy, it just gets dealt with. If it's hard and important, dealing with it will be stressful... That said, the breaks without activity make it easier, certainly -- I can't imagine someone lasting as DPL or release manager for 16 or 13 or 9 years, for instance. Cheers, aj -- 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/20141120082146.ga21...@master.debian.org
Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On 19/11/14 at 22:31 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 01:59:33PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 19/11/14 at 12:25 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > I fear that, by reducing the average 'age' from 7.8 years to ~2 years, > > > > we are going too far. I would like to make it easier, for some members, > > > > to stay members of the TC for longer than 4 years. OTOH, I don't want > > > > this decision to be taken lightly. > > > > Again, this is true only under the assumption that former members won't > > > come back. > > > > But even with that assumption, it seems you're arguing for the fact that > > > a term limit of 4.5 years (and therefore an average of about half of > > > that, modulo the transition period) is too short. It's hard to judge > > > that in the abstract, but my gut feeling is that it is in fact quite > > > long. Volunteers, especially when active in stress-full roles, do need > > > shorter cycles. > > > I don't think that the TC is a stress-full role. > > Steve, I think you know better than to misquote. The full paragraph was: > > I don't think that the TC is a stress-full role. Obviously the recent past > > proved how the role can be incredibly stressful at times. But there has > > also been long periods without much activity, as shown on > > https://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte or > > https://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-ctte.png I think that Debian is currently going through a set of difficult decisions, and that the activity level (and stress level) of the TC will return to something more acceptable at some point. If it doesn't, then we have a problem, because I don't think that it's normal to rely so much on a last resort committee. It would say something about our inability to make good decisions in the normal course of actions. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 01:59:33PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 19/11/14 at 12:25 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > I fear that, by reducing the average 'age' from 7.8 years to ~2 years, > > > we are going too far. I would like to make it easier, for some members, > > > to stay members of the TC for longer than 4 years. OTOH, I don't want > > > this decision to be taken lightly. > > Again, this is true only under the assumption that former members won't > > come back. > > But even with that assumption, it seems you're arguing for the fact that > > a term limit of 4.5 years (and therefore an average of about half of > > that, modulo the transition period) is too short. It's hard to judge > > that in the abstract, but my gut feeling is that it is in fact quite > > long. Volunteers, especially when active in stress-full roles, do need > > shorter cycles. > I don't think that the TC is a stress-full role. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:18:36PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 19/11/14 at 19:13 +, 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) How about only accepting reappointment during the cooloff period if a.) the committee is short more than one person *AND* b.) the nomination comes from the DPL? That way, if the DPL observes that the TC clearly struggles to find a new member he can nominate a "cooloff:ee", but the TC cannot do so themselves. PS: To preempt possible objections that this allows for the TC to gamble the system by claiming that there are no viable candidates: I fully trust the TC to be above such behaviour *AND* I also fully trust the DPL to see through such a behaviour if it, against all odds, would take place. Kind regards, David -- /) David Weinehall /) Rime on my window (\ // ~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- 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/20141119223245.gg8...@hirohito.acc.umu.se
Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On 19/11/14 at 19:13 +, 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
Re: Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members
An easy way to resolve the question about the "mandatory vacation period" would be to just have both variants available when this goes to GR? In other words, let the project decide whether that seems prudent. For the record, as the now-longest-serving member of the TC, I'll be the first person to go if any term limit measure is put in place, and I'm not emotional about either the overall idea of term limits, or about this sub-question. Bdale signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > First, some data. The 'age' of each member of the TC (not excluding Russ and > Colin) is: > aba 2005-12-27 <8764pbxd9k@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>, 8.9y > bdale 2001-04-17 <20010417195420.i5...@visi.net>, ~13.6y > cjwatson 2011-08-24 <20110824160257.ga30...@upsilon.cc>, 3.2y > don 2009-01-11 <87zlhx3c2s@rover.gag.com>, 5.8y > iwj at some point in 1999; ~15.3y > rra 2009-01-11 <87zlhx3c2s@rover.gag.com>, 5.8y > vorlon 2005-12-27 <8764pbxd9k@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>, 8.9y > keithp 2013-11-29 <20131129161152.ga9...@xanadu.blop.info>, 0.9y I already did the refs for these in May: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/msg00054.html Ian was a founding member of the ctte in 1998, not '99; so with his resignation today combined with the constitution passing on 23 Nov 1998, he served three days short of 16 years by my count. > So the average time spent in the TC is 7.8 years. (8.9 years without > Russ and Colin) That's only true of the current members, I went through the past members in https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/msg00077.html Basically about 5 or 6 years average when you include them. > On 18/11/14 at 21:49 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > +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. > Even if the possibility is open, I doubt that many expired TC members > will actually re-apply the year after their expiration. The message sent > by the project is quite clear: they should probably do something else. I think that depends on how many good candidates the project can find for tech ctte members. If there's just, say, 10 people, I can easily imagine people re-volunteering a year after to keep the ctte filled. If there's 20 or more (which I expect is the case), I'd expect you're right, and that, having been on the ctte for 5 years, people would take the opportunity for a longer break than 12 months. None of that's a value judgement though, and at least I, personally, don't think/intend that the proposed change should be interpreted that way. > So this proposal is likely to significantly reduce the average 'age' of > TC members, to ~2 or 3 years. In one sense, that's trivially true: if the max age is 5.5 years (appointment on Jul 2nd, hitting 4.49 years on Jan 1st, then expiring at 5.49 years next Jan 1st), no one resigns ever, and you somehow get an even distribution of member ages, that would look something like: 8 months x 2 25 months x 2 41 months x 2 58 months x 2 which averages to about 33 months (2 years 9 months) average age. That's despite an average length of service of between 4.5 and 5.5 years since by assumption, no one ever resigns. I think the length of service is more important than the average age, personally. > On the other hand, the TC is the kind of committee where it's useful to > have members with quite a lot of memory about past decisions (and > possibly, mistakes). First, even if that's true, you don't have to have been on the ctte to have seen its decisions or mistakes -- it's constitutionally required to operate in the open, so *anyone* (DD or not) can follow its decision making processes, either in real time, or by looking through the archives. Further, past-committee members can always be sought out for advice and more insight into previous decisions if that's needed/desired -- they don't have to retain seats on the ctte for their memories to be used in decisions. Second, I'm not sure that is true -- assuming a mistake was made in the past, whoever made it is is more likely to defend it, repeat it, or simiply not want to admit it, than someone who wasn't involved and can view the issue more objectively. > I fear that, by reducing the average 'age' from 7.8 years to ~2 years, I think you'd be better off focussing on max(age) than average here -- even if the only way of getting info on past decisions was to have someone who was there on the committee, you only need one person, not half of them to have been around that long. A max age of 2 years would be pretty unsustainable IMO, but I don't think it's terribly realistic either (and could be worked around by ex-members getting reappointed after 12 months off anyway). > I'm not sure of how to achieve that. We could just drop the mandatory > vacation clause, and have expired TC members go through the same process > as prospective new members (nomination, etc.). The TC and the DPL would > then have to consider whether it's better to re-appoint an old member, > or to replace him/her with a new one. But maybe that's not enough to > ensure the suitable rate of change... 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
Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 06:31:31PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Stefano Zacchiroli , 2014-11-18, 21:49: > >-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. > > Not sure why you had to renumber existing stuff; So, that is because (a) logically the point about the "vacation" period seems more related to appointment rather than removal from the CTTE, and therefore (b) to preserve the relative order of list items about appointment vs list items about removal. But if renumbering one point of the Constitution is annoying (Cc:-ing secretary) we can certainly switch 5 with 6 and avoid it. FWIW I did check, and I didn't find any reference /in the Constitution/ to §6.2.5 that would become dangling due to this renumbering. > but other than that, looks good to me! Thanks for your feedback! Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members
* Stefano Zacchiroli , 2014-11-18, 21:49: -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. Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically +reviewed on the 1st of January of each year. At this time, the +terms of members who were appointed at least four and a half +years (54 months) ago automatically expire. Expiry occurs in +order of seniority, most senior members first, and is limited +to at most 2 members per year. + 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. Not sure why you had to renumber existing stuff; but other than that, looks good to me! -- Jakub Wilk -- 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/20141119173131.ga5...@jwilk.net
Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On 19/11/14 at 12:25 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > I fear that, by reducing the average 'age' from 7.8 years to ~2 years, > > we are going too far. I would like to make it easier, for some members, > > to stay members of the TC for longer than 4 years. OTOH, I don't want > > this decision to be taken lightly. > > Again, this is true only under the assumption that former members won't > come back. > > But even with that assumption, it seems you're arguing for the fact that > a term limit of 4.5 years (and therefore an average of about half of > that, modulo the transition period) is too short. It's hard to judge > that in the abstract, but my gut feeling is that it is in fact quite > long. Volunteers, especially when active in stress-full roles, do need > shorter cycles. I don't think that the TC is a stress-full role. Obviously the recent past proved how the role can be incredibly stressful at times. But there has also been long periods without much activity, as shown on https://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte or https://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-ctte.png > > I'm not sure of how to achieve that. We could just drop the mandatory > > vacation clause, and have expired TC members go through the same > > process as prospective new members (nomination, etc.). The TC and the > > DPL would then have to consider whether it's better to re-appoint an > > old member, or to replace him/her with a new one. But maybe that's not > > enough to ensure the suitable rate of change... > > > > What do you think? > > I see where you are going, but all in all it seems to me you have in > mind a different model from what has been now distilled in the current > draft. Which is of course absolutely fine. I'd love to see a more > complete sketch of your model (e.g., as a draft GR) to better compare > and contrast. Maybe the best way forward here is to come up with > alternative models and have all of them in a GR. Maybe. I'll wait for a few more days for additional feedback. Also, I'm not entirely satisfied with my proposal to just drop the mandatory vacation clause, and have expired TC members go through the same process as other candidates if they want another term. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 18/11/14 at 21:49 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > +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. > > Even if the possibility is open, I doubt that many expired TC members > will actually re-apply the year after their expiration. The message sent > by the project is quite clear: they should probably do something else. I disagree that that would be the message that the project send to CTTE members when they hit the term limit. There is nothing *personal* in a term limit, it's a common sense rule to ensure turn-over. Nothing more, nothing less. I do understand that *current* CTTE members might, in theory, take this GR the wrong way and think that it is a GR against them personally. (This is in fact why I do plan, as mentioned before, to explicitly invite CTTE members to get involved in this discussion once the landscape of proposals on the table has clarified.) If that were to happen, you're probably correct on the fact that those members will probably not apply again. My only answer here is that we should do our best to convey to them the rationale behind this change in the abstract. (Which is also why I try hard not to look at, or think of, the seniority ranking among current CTTE members.) But once the rule is agreed upon, I do not see why anyone should take reaching the term limit badly. It seems to me that the year off is a win-win scenario for all involved actors. The senior member get a chance of reassessing whether they want to keep on working with CTTE stuff without the social awkwardness of having to explain why they step down. If they come back, the rest of the CTTE and the DPL get a chance to reassess whether the reapplying member would still be a good fit for the CTTE and the Project. If they do not come back, then probably they should have stepped down more or less at the same time anyhow and, once again, we have spared them some social awkwardness. > On the other hand, the TC is the kind of committee where it's useful > to have members with quite a lot of memory about past decisions (and > possibly, mistakes). There's not so much activity (well, in general), > so experience builds up slowly. Also, even if there's a correlation in > general between age and ossification, we could have older members that > manage to stay young, active, and generally useful to the TC. Fine. We will then just offer them 1 year of vacation from CTTE duties every now and then, I believe many people in other Debian core teams dream of that :-) > I fear that, by reducing the average 'age' from 7.8 years to ~2 years, > we are going too far. I would like to make it easier, for some members, > to stay members of the TC for longer than 4 years. OTOH, I don't want > this decision to be taken lightly. Again, this is true only under the assumption that former members won't come back. But even with that assumption, it seems you're arguing for the fact that a term limit of 4.5 years (and therefore an average of about half of that, modulo the transition period) is too short. It's hard to judge that in the abstract, but my gut feeling is that it is in fact quite long. Volunteers, especially when active in stress-full roles, do need shorter cycles. > I'm not sure of how to achieve that. We could just drop the mandatory > vacation clause, and have expired TC members go through the same > process as prospective new members (nomination, etc.). The TC and the > DPL would then have to consider whether it's better to re-appoint an > old member, or to replace him/her with a new one. But maybe that's not > enough to ensure the suitable rate of change... > > What do you think? I see where you are going, but all in all it seems to me you have in mind a different model from what has been now distilled in the current draft. Which is of course absolutely fine. I'd love to see a more complete sketch of your model (e.g., as a draft GR) to better compare and contrast. Maybe the best way forward here is to come up with alternative models and have all of them in a GR. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members
Hi, First, some data. The 'age' of each member of the TC (not excluding Russ and Colin) is: aba 2005-12-27 <8764pbxd9k@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>, 8.9y bdale 2001-04-17 <20010417195420.i5...@visi.net>, ~13.6y cjwatson 2011-08-24 <20110824160257.ga30...@upsilon.cc>, 3.2y don 2009-01-11 <87zlhx3c2s@rover.gag.com>, 5.8y iwj at some point in 1999; ~15.3y rra 2009-01-11 <87zlhx3c2s@rover.gag.com>, 5.8y vorlon 2005-12-27 <8764pbxd9k@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>, 8.9y keithp 2013-11-29 <20131129161152.ga9...@xanadu.blop.info>, 0.9y So the average time spent in the TC is 7.8 years. (8.9 years without Russ and Colin) On 18/11/14 at 21:49 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > +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. Even if the possibility is open, I doubt that many expired TC members will actually re-apply the year after their expiration. The message sent by the project is quite clear: they should probably do something else. So this proposal is likely to significantly reduce the average 'age' of TC members, to ~2 or 3 years. I totally see the point in preventing the ossification of the TC. Clearly, it is a good thing if many TC members are involved in day-to-day Debian activities outside of the TC, and even preferably in day-to-day *core* Debian activities (core team membership, maintenance of important packages, etc). It's useful to feel what it's like to maintain packages etc, to fully understand the impact of their decisions. I don't think that we want a TC that is an "advisory board", where, for all members, being in the TC is the only thing they do in Debian. On the other hand, the TC is the kind of committee where it's useful to have members with quite a lot of memory about past decisions (and possibly, mistakes). There's not so much activity (well, in general), so experience builds up slowly. Also, even if there's a correlation in general between age and ossification, we could have older members that manage to stay young, active, and generally useful to the TC. I fear that, by reducing the average 'age' from 7.8 years to ~2 years, we are going too far. I would like to make it easier, for some members, to stay members of the TC for longer than 4 years. OTOH, I don't want this decision to be taken lightly. I'm not sure of how to achieve that. We could just drop the mandatory vacation clause, and have expired TC members go through the same process as prospective new members (nomination, etc.). The TC and the DPL would then have to consider whether it's better to re-appoint an old member, or to replace him/her with a new one. But maybe that's not enough to ensure the suitable rate of change... What do you think? Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [DRAFT #2] Maximum term for tech ctte members
Hi, On Tue Nov 18, 2014 at 21:49:52 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > === > The Constitution is amended as follows: > > --- > --- constitution.txt.orig 2014-11-17 18:02:53.314945907 +0100 > +++ constitution.txt.new 2014-11-18 21:17:30.544040579 +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. Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically > +reviewed on the 1st of January of each year. At this time, the > +terms of members who were appointed at least four and a half > +years (54 months) ago automatically expire. Expiry occurs in > +order of seniority, most senior members first, and is limited > +to at most 2 members per year. > + 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. *second* -- Martin Zobel-Helas Debian System Administrator Debian & GNU/Linux Developer Debian Listmaster http://about.me/zobel Debian Webmaster GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B signature.asc Description: Digital signature
