Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > 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'd probably second that, but I'd really appreciate hearing from past
> and present DPLs, as well as DPL candidates, to decide how to vote on
I fear that a two-year period might frighten away people who may have
done a great job for one year. And I really think we need the dynamism
provided by the short term we currently have. I already said several
times that I would not run again next year anyway because I feel new
ideas are needed.
And it's not like the newly elected DPL spends the beginning of the
term undoing what the previous one was doing: projects that were started
will not suddenly stop. There can be collaboration, 2ICs or any form of
delegation to continue the projects.
That's my 2 cents, I'll tell you in 6 months whether I still feel the