Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Tue, 31 Jul 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've been thinking a bit on that as well. While I'm all for some
continuity and to give some more time, it would be more difficult for me
to decide to stand if the goal is to stay in the position for two years.
IMHO it would only make sense if we switched to a team-based DPL position
because the requirement are then lowered for each individual. That said
nothing is preventing people like me to propose a team while others who
are more confident on their long-term availability/energy can stand alone.
In the end, while 2 years is really long, 18 months might be ok.
Furthermore it gives a reasonable chance to each DPL to have a release
within their terms.
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :