Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:49:49AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> writes:
> > While we're at it, I've long felt that a one-year DPL term is just too
> > short (because a DPL needs to spend a few months to get worked in, and
> > can't do all that much when the next election is about to turn up for
> > fear of being accused to be campaigning, often leaving only slightly
> > over half a year or so of time for real work to be done). If more people
> > feel like it, I'll draft up an amendment that turns it into a two-year
> > term, or so.
> I will definitely second such a proposal, unless former DPLs come forward
> to say that this just wouldn't work for some reason.
Yes, indeed. One of the main reasons why I haven't brought this up
before is the understanding that being a DPL is a very demanding job,
and that perhaps two years might be too long. Add the observation that
Martin Michlmayr just wasn't very active anymore near the end of his
second term, as is the case for Wichter Akkerman, and you'll understand
why I do have second thoughts.
OTOH, probably a longer term sets other expectations, and it won't be so
much of a problem. Still, the input of some ex-DPL on that point is
> I've felt the same thing for a while as well. One year isn't much
> time to get anything done; it's barely enough time to build up the
> rapport required to start getting things done.
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22