Hello Stefano Zacchiroli. On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 09:13:06PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 03:43:38PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > > The sooner the better IMHO. I find it very weird that tech-ctte members > > apparently recognize the need but still want to be force-rotated rather > > then voluntarily doing it. On the other hand, I guess you don't end > > up in a committee unless you absolutely love procedural formalia and > > want to see as much as possible of it. > > I find this explanation to be absolutely backward. There are good > reasons for *not* wanting a maximum term limit to be just folklore.
Without this made up second part of the sentance, it means nothing to me: ... and if we rotate members now, it will forever remain folklore. (Which I ofcourse don't think is true.) > If it is something important (and I think it is), then it should really be > carved in the stone of a foundation document. That way you avoid the > risk of people trying to game the system and, more importantly, the > social awkwardness of having to deal with that situation, no matter how > unlikely that is to happen. As I've mentioned before: a Constitution is > precisely the place where one wants to be paranoid. I don't see any obstacles for improving the constitution at any time. I also don't see how the constitution not yet being the perfect document should be allowed to be an obstacle for just doing the right thing. > > I wouldn't be surprised to find out that several tech-ctte members think > that such a just rule is so important that it should really be carved in > the Constitution, instead of wanting to have it that way just for the > sake of formalities. Either way, I wouldn't put any motivation in their > mouths without asking first. 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. - We (FSVO we) do not trust future members of tech-ctte to formalise the basic principle. - Therefor we must allow existing tech-ctte members to continue violating the basic principle so they can enforce it against future members. Seems like a whole lot of distrust to me. Would be very refreshening to see someone take a leap of faith just to prove that we're not building the entire project based on distrust (and constitutional documents to deal with that distrust). As you probably understand, you haven't convinced me yet.... but to avoid making this yet another unneccesary long discussion we should probably just agree to disagree here. Neither of this was my primary motivation for my initial mail. I just wanted to express my support of Anthony Towns to go ahead with his proposal despite his very honorable attempts at letting more active contributors propose the changes we want to see in the project. Just couldn't resist to also voice my opinion on a related matter, which might have been good if I managed to resist. Regards, Andreas Henriksson -- 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/20141106120259.ga3...@fatal.se
