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 |