Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:25:10AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > This approach seems like it focuses too much on aggregate committee > > turnover, rather than just setting a term limit. > > Term limits rather than turnover was what I proposed originally; the > response to that was that people were concerned about it risking too > much churn. > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/msg00054.html > https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/msg00057.html > https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/msg00059.html
>From the second mail you linked: > I like Russ' approach here too, assign a random term start so we don't > suddenly have a large number of people being forced to resign and be > reappointed. Maybe just do it as a FIFO with a fixed distribution over > whatever we end up as the term limit? >From the third: > - 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, just because > migration is hard. > > For the migration in this specific case, random assigning start term > dates as suggested by Russ seems to be a brilliant idea. Distinguishing those two aspects is precisely what I'm trying to do here; the second proposal I sent incorporates a transition measure inspired by Andrei's suggestion, which is effectively the FIFO suggested above. - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141120213114.GA7172@jtriplet-mobl1
