On 4/11/2019 11:27 AM, Drew DeVault wrote:
> I've also been unsure about forced rotation. Why don't we compromise and
> eliminate the restriction about serving consecutive terms?
You actually brought up one of the reason forced rotation has to exist
in one of our talks previously.
Allow me to quote myself with the relevant examples:
On 4/11/2019, I wrote:
> 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 we were to eliminate the restriction about serving consecutive terms,
we would have to make sure we are prepared for well-known real scenarios
like the above.
I think forced rotation is an adequate method of preventing them
inherently, and also gives the base member the opportunity to see the
world from the position of everyone else - refreshing their perspective
and enabling them to serve better.
If we can come out with ways to have both of the above that is not
forced rotation, I would be onboard, but I'm not really seeing any
Do you have one? :)
Received on Thu Apr 11 2019 - 11:34:38 UTC