Mail archive

Re: [alpine-devel] [PATCH 2/2] Rework the base team description

From: Chloe Kudryavtsev <>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 10:16:03 -0400

On 4/11/2019 9:27 AM, Natanael Copa wrote:
> There is no guarantee that anyone gets re-elected.

Ultimately, you have to trust the project to elect good people.
Just like you have to trust the project to write good code.

> What I meant was that this would be a great opportunity
> for me to start some new exciting project. If i did that. Why would I
> be interested in getting back into "base" and clean up whatever mess
> the last person has introduced?

Because you know you're the right person for the job.
Let me put it this way: if the only reason you want to remain in power
is because you have it now, that sounds like you're on your way to
burning out.

> The concern here is, do we want rotate out good people? Or do we want
> try keep them.

We want to rotate people, period.
People can change - someone could go from being good to being less
active, or even straight out bad.
Suggesting kicking someone out of a powerful group like base shakes up
the entire project - it is inherently a violent event, and is inevitable.
Simply waiting a bit and not re-electing them is a peaceful resolution
to such things: it is a self-correction mechanism.

Of course we want to keep good people, but the process of selecting
people should be through positive reinforcement (re-elect the good
people!), rather than negatively selecting the bad ones.

This is also why you cannot be re-elected immediately.
When elections are coming up, the person about to end their term would
have significant amounts of influence, and if they were bad they could
use those to try to pressure people into re-electing them.
Similarly, a good person that's about to end their term would be
vulnerable to bad external actors pressuring people into not re-electing
them (for instance, someone could go through everything you have ever
said, and tried to dig up something embarrassing).
Both of these types of events are unneeded strain on the project, and
both are effectively eliminated by enforcing a one-year-break between
being in power.

If the worst scenario you're considering is someone ends up finding
something they like doing better, I don't believe that to be bad.
I would instead be glad for the person that found something they like
doing even more :)
(Note: same applies to any people that leave the project in general for
such reasons - we should strive to be an amazing project to contribute
to, rather than keeping people around because they have a sense of
obligation, in my opinion. This is one of my long term goals as well,
though one that's less seemingly distant.)

Received on Thu Apr 11 2019 - 10:16:03 UTC