On 29 June 2014 19:14, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On 26 June 2014 08:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members"):
>>- Term limit: Every 1st of November, the most senior member of the
>> Technical Committee
On 26 June 2014 08:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members"):
>- Term limit: Every 1st of November, the most senior member of the
> Technical Committee's is immediately and automatically removed
> from the Com
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members"):
> On 30 May 2014 19:37, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I might have another go at seeing if I can word it for rolling twelve
> > months, to see if that's workable.
>
> Okay, so I gave it a go, and c
On 30 May 2014 19:37, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I might have another go at seeing if I can word it for rolling twelve
> months, to see if that's workable.
Okay, so I gave it a go, and came up with:
- A Technical Committee member's term will end upon resignation, removal
or expiry.
- A Technic
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes ("Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members"):
>> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> > I don't think this achieves the goal of rotating more project members
>> &
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 07:58:45PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm still skeptical that something built around people typically serving
> for eight years is the sort of turnover we want, but it's the conservative
> approach and doesn't change too much at once. Which has some definite
> merits.
I
Philip Hands writes ("Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members"):
> I also wonder what is to be done about someone coming to the end of
> their term during the middle of an ongoing discussion. How well do you
> (Ian) think you'd have coped if you knew that the recent deci
Paul Wise writes:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Paul Wise writes:
>>> No-one in the thread seems to be reading Planet Debian, but here is an
>>> alternative proposal:
>>> http://xana.scru.org/xana2/ranticore/techctte/
>> I do read Planet Debian, actually. But that'
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Paul Wise writes:
>
>> No-one in the thread seems to be reading Planet Debian, but here is an
>> alternative proposal:
>
>> http://xana.scru.org/xana2/ranticore/techctte/
>
> I do read Planet Debian, actually. But that's not a proposal. :)
Paul Wise writes:
> No-one in the thread seems to be reading Planet Debian, but here is an
> alternative proposal:
> http://xana.scru.org/xana2/ranticore/techctte/
I do read Planet Debian, actually. But that's not a proposal. :)
I will say that term limits are not, in my mind, any sort of a
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Would anyone else be supportive of a proposal to set a term for tech ctte
> membership?
No-one in the thread seems to be reading Planet Debian, but here is an
alternative proposal:
http://xana.scru.org/xana2/ranticore/techctte/
--
bye,
pa
Ian Jackson writes:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members"):
>> I'm not sure there's any need to say something about this, unless there's
>> a perception that the TC's process for selecting new members is somehow
>> brok
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members"):
> I'm not sure there's any need to say something about this, unless there's
> a perception that the TC's process for selecting new members is somehow
> broken.
If we introduce a constitutional t
Matthias Urlichs writes ("Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members"):
> Or, if we want an odd number of members, let three members step down
> every two years.
We do want an odd number of members, I think. And 9 is better than 7.
This produces a very "lumpy" transi
Michael Gilbert writes ("Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members"):
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I don't think this achieves the goal of rotating more project members
> > through the TC.
>
> You could rotate people in to serve in p
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> Would anyone else be supportive of a proposal to set a term for tech ctte
> membership?
>
> The current tech ctte members were appointed:
>
> Ian: May/Dec 1998 (15 years, 5 months) [0]
> Bdale: Apr 2001 (13 years, 1 month)
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:37:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> We could combine both features, though: set a term length of two years,
>> and then say that people can serve for two terms in succession but then
>> have to leave the committee for at least one term.
> Two
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 09:02:25AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Russ Allbery:
> > I had picked four-year terms because I think adding one member every six
> > months (or two members every year) is probably near the upper limit of
> > membership management that the TC can deal with and still get
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:37:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >>> If we want the opportunity to appoint new members regularly, rather
> >>> than expire old members per se, we could just say that: "on July 1st,
> >>> the two longest serving ctte members' term expires" to end up with (on
> >>> aver
Hi,
Anthony Towns:
> That's an average of ~6 years, and a median of 5 years
You did not consider the current members.
> should probably be scaled down given the lack of involvement of most of
> those folks towards the end of their terms...
However, the current really-long-term members fail to e
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 02:09:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> 8 seems like it would be near ideal: turnover is dealt with only about
> once per year, it is close to the average of the existing members
> terms (7.385 years), and it's likely close the historical average
> (although I haven't cal
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:02:17AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> The Australian senate (our federal parliament) has 8 year terms. In
(6 year terms; same as the US senate as it happens. We have 3 years
terms the house of reps and hence prime minister as compared to 2 year
terms for the US hous of
Hi,
Russ Allbery:
> I had picked four-year terms because I think adding one member every six
> months (or two members every year) is probably near the upper limit of
> membership management that the TC can deal with and still get other things
> done, and at the same time I think four years is near
On 5/26/14, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> We could combine both features, though: set a term length of two years,
>>> and then say that people can serve for two terms in succession but then
>>> have to leave the committ
On 5/26/14, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>> Which is more important, avoiding sudden upheavals where possible,
>> or ensuring individual ctte members have breaks?
>
>> If the latter's more important, then it's better not to special case
>> things now; if the former's more importa
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> We could combine both features, though: set a term length of two years,
>>> and then say that people can serve for two terms in succession but then
>>> have to leave the committee for at least one term.
>
>> 8 seems like it would be near idea
Michael Gilbert writes:
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> We could combine both features, though: set a term length of two years,
>> and then say that people can serve for two terms in succession but then
>> have to leave the committee for at least one term.
> 8 seems lik
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> We could combine both features, though: set a term length of two years,
> and then say that people can serve for two terms in succession but then
> have to leave the committee for at least one term.
8 seems like it would be near ideal: turnove
Anthony Towns writes:
> Hmm, that doesn't really get to the point I was trying to reach. How
> about:
> Which is more important, avoiding sudden upheavals where possible,
> or ensuring individual ctte members have breaks?
> If the latter's more important, then it's better not to special case
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:37:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Yeah; I don't think that's a bad rule in general, but I'm not convinced
> > it's a great fit for the tech-ctte. The thought experiment that makes me
> > doubt it is "if a compulsory x year break after n years of service makes
> > sen
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 06:40:22PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Other bodies of this type take a variation on this approach (and of the
>> reappointment rule you propose below) that I quite like: after each
>> term, that member may not be reappointed for some period. For
Quoting Francesca Ciceri (2014-05-24 09:30:26)
> Also:
> http://blog.zouish.org/nonupdd/#/22 and the next 2-3 slides.
Very nice slides, the whole set!
(and I mean the content, not the slick wrapping)
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Websit
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 01:07:11AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> - more generally, I think that all Debian "core" teams (if not *all*
> teams...) would benefit from a turnover process that requires
> individual members to reaffirm, on a yearly basis, their continued
> interest in keepi
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 01:07:11AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> - continuity is valuable in a body like the tech-ctte, where there
> aren't that many decisions on a yearly basis (and hence, for instance,
> it takes time to get new members up to speed).
You could get continuity by having
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 01:07:11AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 06:58:36PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> I believe a maximum of 5 years in a
> row with a minimum 1-year suspension before being able to join again
> would work well for our tech-ctte.
I think 5 years w
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 06:40:22PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Would anyone else be supportive of a proposal to set a term for tech
> > ctte membership?
> I just mentioned this today in our TC meeting, so obviously I've been
> thinking along these lines as well and have
]] Stefano Zacchiroli
> - in this kind of "reform" discussions I find generally useful to
> distinguish two aspects: 1) the ideal model we want to have, 2) how to
> migrate from the current model to that. Entangling the two aspects
> usually make the status quo win over everything else, jus
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 06:58:36PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Anthony Towns
> > Would anyone else be supportive of a proposal to set a term for tech
> > ctte membership?
Seconded as well.
I've a couple of contributions I wanted to make to this thread, even
though they've largely been sup
]] Anthony Towns
> Would anyone else be supportive of a proposal to set a term for tech ctte
> membership?
Yes, absolutely. I've been chatting to various people about it over the
last couple of months, so..
[...]
> I think set terms, with no term limits would make sense (ie, you're
> appointe
Hi Anthony,
On Freitag, 23. Mai 2014, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Would anyone else be supportive of a proposal to set a term for tech ctte
> membership?
yes.
> YMMV. I think I'd rather second a proposal along these lines than actually
> propose it...
me, too, sorry.
Thanks for bringing this up on
Anthony Towns writes:
> Would anyone else be supportive of a proposal to set a term for tech
> ctte membership?
I just mentioned this today in our TC meeting, so obviously I've been
thinking along these lines as well and have been wondering if this would
be a good idea.
> I think set terms, wit
Hello world,
Would anyone else be supportive of a proposal to set a term for tech ctte
membership?
The current tech ctte members were appointed:
Ian: May/Dec 1998 (15 years, 5 months) [0]
Bdale: Apr 2001 (13 years, 1 month) [1]
Andreas: Jan 2006 (8 years, 4 months) [2]
Steve: Jan 2006 (8 yea
42 matches
Mail list logo
