[Tim] 

So:  term limits!  Say, 12 years.  If there are 3 Elders, replace one every 12/3 = 4 years.  At the start we can use the `secrets` module to pick which Elders get the first 4, 8, and 12-year terms ;-)

Fresh blood is a good thing in all areas.


[Larry]
Can I get you to clarify what you mean by "term limits"?  Do you solely mean "Elders would not be appointed for life, but rather would need to be re-elected every N years"?  Or do you additionally mean "No Elder can serve more than N terms in their lifetime?"  As an admittedly-feeble attempt at disambiguation, I'd call the former "limited terms" and the latter "term limits".  (I would welcome better terms ;-)

It would mean whatever we said it means ;-)  I had in mind that an Elder would be limited to one 12-year term.  You do your dozen and you're out.  The only ways to get out are to serve your 12 years, quit. die, or get impeached.  Then that's it - you can't be a Python Elder again.

 
I'm most familiar with the term "term limits" from American politics, where it definitely means the latter: a person can only serve N times, and are simply ineligible to serve in that same role an N+1th time.  As an example, after FDR was elected President four times (!), the American Congress passed the 22nd Amendment which limits any particular person to no more than two terms as President.

In the context of hypothetical US Supreme Court term limits, legal thinking has been in line with my meaning above, although (a single) 18-year term has been most often discussed in that context:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States#Supreme_Court

However, the articles I read most recently talked about 12 years instead, and I like that better for Python.  The Supremes get a salary, but Elders don't.  12 years is a looooong commitment to do something "in spare time".

Using my terminology above, at the moment I'm open-minded about whether or not the Council members should have "limited terms".  But I'm less upbeat about "term limits".  Personally I've always found this concept of "term limits" a bit silly--the electorate could simply decline to re-elect the incumbent.  The fact that Americans re-elect the incumbent so frequently, and also vote for term limits, seems to distill down to the attitude "Throw the bums out!... except for my guy, he's good."

Of course a limit on the number of terms a Congress Critter can serve is intended to force the _other_ side's bums out.  The passion for the prospect of being able to do that clouds seeing that it will also throw your side's bums out too ;-)

BTW, we both know that the US founders deliberately did _not_ want Federal judges to be elected.  They had little use for democracy at the Federal level.  But without a Prez and a Congress to "do the right thing" in the peoples' best interest, I figured it's good enough to let PSF Fellows do the voting (in the best interests of the PSF's much broader membership).