Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] [PATCH 2/2] Rework the base team description
From: Ted Trask <ttrask01@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190409133140.GB21799@homura.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 13:55:51 -0400
Cc: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6B5C3246-C8D8-4CE8-8A56-8ECBADE4654B@yahoo.com>
References: <20190409050210.20217-1-sir@cmpwn.com> <20190409050210.20217-3-sir@cmpwn.com> <F2137E1D-EF43-4109-9015-17199BBFC2D8@yahoo.com> <20190409133140.GB21799@homura.localdomain>
To: Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com>

There is a big difference between sharing the workload and giving up authori=
ty. My main objection is to the stipulation that a base team member cannot b=
e reelected immediately. Not only is ncopa sharing authority with two others=
 for the first three years, he would be forced to give up all authority in t=
he fourth year. Or am I reading it wrong?

Ted

> On Apr 9, 2019, at 9:31 AM, Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com> wrote:
>=20
>> On 2019-04-09  7:44 AM, Ted Trask wrote:
>> Any scheme that would result in Natanael being removed from the base
>> team after three years would not get my vote. As far as I am
>> concerned, ncopa should be Alpine Linux=E2=80=99s Benevolent Dictator For=

>> Life. Completely serious.
>=20
> One of the stated goals of this effort is to reduce ncopa's workload and
> bus factor. What good is it if ncopa gets burnt out?
>=20
> I trust ncopa not to ratifiy a governance model that won't work, and you
> ought to as well. Personally I agree that the BDFL model is a very
> effective one, but I think that Chloe has found one which may be
> similarly effective and has several advantages.



---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---