[ghc-steering-committee] Status

[Eric Seidel]

Having a defined term length makes sense, and according to GitHub[1] we already have that.

> Members have terms of 3, 4, and 5 years.

Though I don't recall being given a specific term length when I joined :)

Are you suggesting that, beyond well-defined term lengths, we should also have a limit on the number of terms a member can serve? 

> Open question: if a member in good standing renominates themselves, do 
> we still run an open nomination process?

I think we should still have an open nomination process. It could help keep new members coming in and spread the load across the community, which seems especially important for a volunteer group. For example, I might renominate myself even though I have less and less time to serve, because I care about the community. If we then cutoff the nomination process, I serve another term even though there may be someone else who has more time and energy to devote. On the other hand, if we keep an open nomination process, I'll be able to see that other people want to serve, and could choose to withdraw my nomination with peace of mind.

[1]: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/#who-is-the-committee

On Wed, May 22, 2019, at 13:28, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
> 
> 
> > On May 22, 2019, at 4:51 PM, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org> wrote:
> > 
> > It's hard for all of us to make time to review proposals. Seeking more members would help with that, as well as keeping us open to fresh people and ideas.
> > 
> > Are you thinking about simply having a bigger committee, or are some of us about to rotate off?
> 
> I wonder if we should think about having specific term limits on the 
> committee (excepting, perhaps -- and at their permission -- the 
> Simons). Members could renominate themselves when their term expires. 
> This would serve several functions:
> 
> - It's a forcing function to make sure we consider the possibility of 
> new people on a regular basis.
> - A fixed term might incentivize individuals to work harder, given that 
> the burden is time-limited. (Though a multi-year term doesn't feel very 
> limited. To support this point, we might want to allow individuals to 
> choose the length of their term, say an integer in the range 1-3, 
> measured in years. There is theoretically a possibility of many people 
> getting "in phase" and making high rollover, but we can just fix that 
> if it happens.)
> - Right now, without terms, a member may feel awkward leaving, even if 
> their interests have moved on somewhat. Term limits make a natural 
> point at which to leave the table.
> - A member who wants to stay on past their term end (via 
> self-renomination) will have an incentive to be responsive.
> - Though I would be thrilled to have Joachim remain Secretary in 
> perpetuity (our BSFL -- Benevolent Secretary For Life), perhaps we 
> should extend this idea to the secretary position, to give Joachim a 
> natural time to renew his commitment and stave off resentment. :)
> 
> Open question: if a member in good standing renominates themselves, do 
> we still run an open nomination process? I tend to say "no", but that 
> that opens two more questions: what is "good standing", and what if 
> other members of the community want in? I don't have the answers here.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>