Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
* Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2007-07-31 09:49]:
> I will definitely second such a proposal, unless former DPLs come
> forward to say that this just wouldn't work for some reason. I've
> felt the same thing for a while as well.
I don't think it's a good idea to increase the time of a DPL term. As
Lars says, it's much harder to make a two-year commitment and from
personal experience I can tell you that being DPL takes a lot of
energy and time. I think a year is good and if the person wants to do
it again they can simply stand for re-election.
> 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.
You really need to build up rapport and have good contacts before
running for DPL. Also, I think we've seen with a number of DPLs (if
not most) that they were more active at the beginning of their term,
so making it even longer wouldn't help. I also don't really buy the
argument that a year isn't enough to get things done. And there's
always the chance of getting re-elected if someone did a good job.