Andreas Henriksson <[email protected]> writes: > This last part is key in summarising how I interpret your reasoning:
> - There is a consensus for the basic principle of tech-ctte membership > rotation. > - We (for some value of we) do not trust future members of tech-ctte to > always follow this principle. As a TC member, I would like there to be some structure to the job, because there's never a good time to step down, there's always something in progress, etc. If there is a schedule that everyone has agreed to, then it's reliable and predictable and straightforward. If we don't end up getting that into the constitution, I will set a schedule for my own involvement in the TC independently. But I think we will, institutionally, benefit from having there be a commonly-agreed-on schedule that we all use, including people who are considering joining. > - We (FSVO we) do not trust future members of tech-ctte to formalise the > basic principle. I really don't think it's a matter of trust so much that some things do work better with a process agreed-on in advance, even when everyone has the same goals and same desires. The TC could indeed go off and come up with a process on its own, but why not involve the project as a whole? Other people have had really good ideas about what that project would look like. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
