On 10/16/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/16/07, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That's what I was thinking when I was
considering standing in the last
elections (I decided not to, which was the right decision, I think -
maybe this time... we'll see) - I didn't really expect to last more
than a year, and didn't think it would be a problem to serve for a
year and step down at the next election. Less than a year, and I would
have felt like I was letting down the people who voted for me (if
there had been any, which I doubt - I wasn't ready, and I doubt I
could have fooled people into thinking I was), but a year is long
enough, I think.
I do agree that an arbitrator should not consider it a failure, or a
letdown of one's supporters, to announce retirement after the next
election and opening up a space for someone else.
-Matt
I would consider it a sign of maturity and long term committment to
the project if any senior project member takes an intentional sanity
break from stressful duties, with an eye towards avoiding total
burnout and returning (in the same, or different roles) later.
I would almost argue for "run for a shorter term, can't run again
until you've had a year off", but I'm not sure I would want to
legislate specific time limits for anyone who has the energy and
bandwidth and really grooves on the job.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com