| 1 |
On 06/20/13 01:50:29, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:18:49 +0200 |
| 3 |
> hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> [...] |
| 5 |
[snip] |
| 6 |
> > It's a self-maintaining project without any logical connection |
| 7 |
> between |
| 8 |
> > the legitimation of the project and the legitimation of the |
| 9 |
> members. |
| 10 |
> > There is no rotation of members which is absolutely crucial for a |
| 11 |
> > position like that. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I don't see why there should be a rotation: Such a rotation might |
| 14 |
> just |
| 15 |
> make people try to get as much as they can from their new powers |
| 16 |
> until |
| 17 |
> they are "rotated". If people are seriously involved with devrel, |
| 18 |
> handle impartially conflicts and are able to resolve them, why |
| 19 |
> replacing them? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
[snip] |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Alexis. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
Rotation serves to renew the mandate. e.g. Trustees retire by rotation |
| 26 |
every two years. Since 2008, every trustee that has been retired by |
| 27 |
rotation and stood for reelection has been successful. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Rotation does not mean replaced, just the the opportunity for |
| 30 |
replacement exists. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Regards, |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Roy Bamford |
| 36 |
(Neddyseagoon) an member of |
| 37 |
gentoo-ops |
| 38 |
forum-mods |
| 39 |
trustees |
Archives